The metaphysics behind change.

[DoubtingThomas29]

I don't know if I should really be doing this, but I just thought I would post, I really like people who are liberal, even if they are for consenual incest, that's alright I don't care it doesn't bother me.

But I am sure a lot of you like Barack Obama, and that makes you alright with me.

About change is the only thing that is constant is politicians claiming to be for change? And the more things that change is it that the more they stay the same? Who would you say is the candidate for change in the american presidental race? Is it Barack Obama or John Mc Caine?

 

[Axioma]

Things do change, the society of today is nothing like the society of fifty years ago, which is nothing like the society of fifty years before that, etc etc. If anything, change is accelerating. There is always something new under the sun.

And no, plenty of politicians are not about change at all - it's equally possible to rouse people with fear of change, and stupid nostalgia of the old days. The republicans are currently the most accomplished fearmongers on the planet.

 

[JGL53]

...Who would you say is the candidate for change in the american presidental race? Is it Barack Obama or John Mc Caine?

I think McCain would be more of the same if not worse and Obama would try his best to change things in a positive way.

He may or may not succeed, but at least we wouldn't be stuck where we have been for 8 years.

 

[DR RekLaw]

Just a thought. Can we really have change when corporate America has there way with politicians? After all is it not there money that runs the country? So no mater who is in there there will be not change unless corporate America changes. Just my thought.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Who would you say is the candidate for change in the american presidental race? Is it Barack Obama or John Mc Caine?

Neither. Those are status quo candidates. You'll see no significant change from either a Democrat or a Republican.

Bob Barr is a candidate for change.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DailyBlessings]

Change is inevitable when a new person takes office, whether they are "for change" or not. The question is what you desire to see changed, and whether a given agent is capable of enacting that reform. If you are asking whether I think a politician has the capacity to prevent "more of the same" from occurring, if by "more of the same" you mean the vast and diverse scope up of American politics up to this point, my answer would have to be no, I don't think an individual can reform a society on that level. Nor, even if it were possible for one person to have that level of control over a nation, would I want to cede such power to our executive branch. I'll take a poor president over a well-intentioned dictator. Mr. Obama's redeeming value in my mind is that he seems to have the power to motivate others toward action, and that is a useful quality in any political system. But I find it practically and intellectually perilous to depend on the genius of one person, whoever they are, to enact the change one wishes to see in the world.

 

[Received]

Ron Paul's out. Sorry. No change.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Just a thought. Can we really have change when corporate America has there way with politicians? After all is it not there money that runs the country? So no mater who is in there there will be not change unless corporate America changes. Just my thought.

I think you have it there,

Jimmy Carter was a superb President in that he got the most crucial decision absolutely right. By cutting US petroleum consumption he left the oil exporting nations fighting over who was going to make the next sale so he made it a buyers market.

And it was set to stay that way for decades as the USSR had to raise money and was ramping up production. This would have left the Western nations solvent for years to come and OPEC in a state of weakness and disunity.

But it also left the oil companies with low profits.

The oil company owners also own a good chunk of the media, so the oil companies took over the Presidency as well as scaremongering about nuclear power and boosted oil consumption in every way and now the oil exporting nations are making a fortune and the US and other oil consumers are poor.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The metaphysics behind change.

First define what is being changed

The most important policy is energy policy, energy determines which ores can be extracted, metals refined, concrete made, amount of plastic made, manufacturing, transport, food growing.

If we had enough energy we wouldn't need the Middle East or Central Asia.

Imported oil and imported electricity make up a good chunk of our balance of payments deficit.

The other part is from moving our manufacturing to other countries and then buying almost everything from them. As well as stripping this nation of money and jobs it has also exported our energy consumption to other parts of the World.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Our high standard of living depends on getting our imports cheaply and exporting high value items.

We import bananas for example and pay almost nothing for them, ditto coffee beans, and so on. I think we should be nicer to people in other countries, but we took it to extremes with oil.

Oil was cheap after the cut in US consumption

But oil company profits are a percentage of the difference between extraction cost and sale price (dollars per barrel of crude oil). Boosting both US and World consumption put demand above supply and profits soared for both oil companies and oil exporting nations.

It might be claimed this was purely accidental and unforeseeable but if so it is a pretty stupid way to play the game.