DescentBB

It seems Mr. Putin is very nostalgic for the old days and may be intent on recreating something approaching the old soviet union- if not in name and nothing even close to it's old influence- yet including very many of the same republics that separated in the 1990s.

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said he wants to bring ex-Soviet states into a "Eurasian Union" in an article which outlined his first foreign policy initiative as he prepares to return to the Kremlin as the country's next president.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russias-putin- ... 39037.html

Well, if Europe collapses financially, the people in those former Soviet satellites just might give up on that formerly shiny, crooked, crony Capitalism that eventually brought them to ruin and put them all in the poorhouse. Putin might now just have a easy time of integrating his old Soviet Union. However, they'll fail to see until it's too late that what Putin's peddling is just another form of power hungry crooked cronyism, only it's the commie style version. Ya know, just like what's in China.

Do you even read what you type?

It's the worker's paradise!

tunnelcat wrote:Well, if Europe collapses financially, the people in those former Soviet satellites just might give up on that formerly shiny, crooked, crony Capitalism that eventually brought them to ruin and put them all in the poorhouse.

Just what would you replace Capitalism with? And fyi, it was not Capitalism that brought us to this state of affairs, the socialist give-a-way countries like Greece are driving the collapse. Socialist just have to learn government workers can't retire at age 45 with cushy benefits. You know, kinda like the teachers unions driving states like Wisc to bankruptcy here in the states.

However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Well, if Europe collapses financially, the people in those former Soviet satellites just might give up on that formerly shiny, crooked, crony Capitalism that eventually brought them to ruin and put them all in the poorhouse.

Just what would you replace Capitalism with? And fyi, it was not Capitalism that brought us to this state of affairs, the socialist give-a-way countries like Greece are driving the collapse. Socialist just have to learn government workers can't retire at age 45 with cushy benefits. You know, kinda like the teachers unions driving states like Wisc to bankruptcy here in the states.

Absolute BS! You wouldn't know a greedy Capitalist if he bit you on the butt! Have you totally dismissed all the gambling with pension fund and investor monies that went on with the Hedge Funds right before the crash of 2008? How about all that unregulated bad mortgage lending that was "bundled up" as a good investments for unsuspecting investors! Crap!

And what would you call China's system? Capitalism masquerading as Communism? What a weird perversion. They certainly don't call themselves Capitalists, but they're sure using it in spades to enrich their country at our expense!

However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

They won't be shortly with so much muslim immigration and welfare sucking.

In 1984, Golitsyn published the book New Lies For Old,[13] wherein he predicted the collapse of the communist bloc orchestrated from above. He warned about a long-term deception strategy designed to lull the West into a false sense of security, and finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States. Among other things, Golitsyn stated:
"The 'liberalization' [in the Soviet Union] would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed."
"If [liberalization] should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."
"The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. 'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe."
Angleton and Golitsyn reportedly sought the assistance of William F. Buckley, Jr. (himself once a CIA man) in writing New Lies for Old. Buckley refused but later went on to write a novel about Angleton, Spytime: The Undoing of James Jesus Angleton.[14]

This was in 1984 mind you. Time will tell I guess

SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn

it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Eph 5:13 BUT all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Whatever is exposed to light becomes light itself.

Top Gun wrote:However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

There is always the exception, that proves the rule.

Finally, I thank the Soviet government and party for the excellent
educational facilities that made this book possible; and I thank
Russian history and literature for the inspiration they gave when
guiding me toward my decision of conscience to serve the people
rather than the party.
ANATOLIY GOLITSYN--- /

Heh, How can you not love this guy?

SOURCE:
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/newlies4old.pdf

ThunderBunny wrote:

However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

They won't be shortly with so much muslim immigration and welfare sucking.

Uh-huh. And you have something to back that assertion up?

Spidey wrote:

Top Gun wrote:However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

There is always the exception, that proves the rule.

In this saying, "prove" means "test." Sorry, pet peeve.

null0010 wrote:

Spidey wrote:

Top Gun wrote:However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

There is always the exception, that proves the rule.

In this saying, "prove" means "test." Sorry, pet peeve.

Yes, and in this case socialism fails the test, because it only seems to work for some small select homogeneous groups.

Top Gun wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

They won't be shortly with so much muslim immigration and welfare sucking.

Uh-huh. And you have something to back that assertion up?

I've seen this, but have not analyzed it thoroughly.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002 ... ist-reform

edit, and this
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-N ... -nightmare

tunnelcat wrote:


How about all that unregulated bad mortgage lending that was "bundled up" as a good investments for unsuspecting investors! Crap!

Don't blame the Capitalists for this. Blame all the bleeding liberals who pushed for affordable housing. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd being at the head of the whole calamity. In short it was a political decision that led to the mortgage melt down. The greedy Capitalists were only doing what you wanted them to do.

CMON Wood. don't you know your never supposed to screw up a good political hate rant with facts

dissent wrote:I've seen this, but have not analyzed it thoroughly.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002 ... ist-reform

edit, and this
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-N ... -nightmare

Those articles are basically saying that Sweden isn't some crazy hardcore socialist bastion...it's a capitalist democracy that has managed to incorporate elements of expanded government, none of which I'd dispute. And according to the articles, it's done a great job of doing so, though its methods admittedly might not work in a universal sense.

Top Gun wrote:

dissent wrote:I've seen this, but have not analyzed it thoroughly.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002 ... ist-reform

edit, and this
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-N ... -nightmare

Those articles are basically saying that Sweden isn't some crazy hardcore socialist bastion...it's a capitalist democracy that has managed to incorporate elements of expanded government, none of which I'd dispute. And according to the articles, it's done a great job of doing so, though its methods admittedly might not work in a universal sense.

Wait a minute, Gunnie. Upthread you said -

Top Gun wrote:However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

Now you're saying they're capitalist democracies. So which is it? The articles clearly make the case that the moves away from socialism are what is responsible for Sweden's current prosperity.

Indeed, modern Sweden’s success can be seen as more a shift away from the far left policy that predominated from the 1960s till the end of the century. During recent years Swedish policies have shifted strongly to the center-right, placing the once dominant Social Democrats in deep crisis.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, if Europe collapses financially, the people in those former Soviet satellites just might give up on that formerly shiny, crooked, crony Capitalism that eventually brought them to ruin and put them all in the poorhouse. Putin might now just have a easy time of integrating his old Soviet Union. However, they'll fail to see until it's too late that what Putin's peddling is just another form of power hungry crooked cronyism, only it's the commie style version. Ya know, just like what's in China.

TC, you are confused by the term "crony capitalism"; I think this term has the noun and adjective reversed. It should be more accurately termed "capitalistic cronyism" - using the façade of capitalist methods to engage in plain old cronyism. And it is cronyism that is the operative noun in these issues, not capitalism.

Well, if Europe collapses financially

How does that affect us in light of 5 central banks pumping OUR US Dollars into that economy?

Yeah, maybe it results in the neutralization of both Europe and the United States.

"The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. 'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe."

Maybe we are heading towards being a neutral, socialist America, with both Russia and China in the catbirds seats? Don't be a chickenshit.

ThunderBunny wrote:

However, the Scandinavian socialist democracies are in pretty much the best shape out of anyone in Europe.

They won't be shortly with so much muslim immigration and welfare sucking.

don't like those Muslims, do ya? Oh, and I don't think you'll see too much change any time soon.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:


How about all that unregulated bad mortgage lending that was "bundled up" as a good investments for unsuspecting investors! Crap!

Don't blame the Capitalists for this. Blame all the bleeding liberals who pushed for affordable housing. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd being at the head of the whole calamity. In short it was a political decision that led to the mortgage melt down. The greedy Capitalists were only doing what you wanted them to do.

pure BS. It had far more to do with a twenty year push by a FEW powerful Republicans to de-regulate the investment and banking markets. You could have pushed affordable housing all you wanted to under pre-1985 rules, and this would have NEVER happened.

flip wrote:

Well, if Europe collapses financially

How does that affect us in light of 5 central banks pumping OUR US Dollars into that economy?

they bought the dollars, can't they spend them as they see fit?

woodchip wrote:Don't blame the Capitalists for this. Blame all the bleeding liberals who pushed for affordable housing. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd being at the head of the whole calamity. In short it was a political decision that led to the mortgage melt down. The greedy Capitalists were only doing what you wanted them to do.

Ohhhhhhhhh, poor little bankers. Don't forget the repeal of Glass Steagall, which those poor little bankers have wanted since around 1980 and that the Republicans happily crammed through with the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act. Sure Clinton and a bunch of turncoat Dems gave it to them, but I blame mostly the Republicans for championing it in the first place. All at the behest of the big banks that wanted to get into investing to make more profit. And what better way to get into investing than to sell as many mortgages as possible good or bad, bundled into securities, since the old banking rules were no longer being enforced, and then peddle them to unsuspecting investors, ie., pension funds and mutual funds. Woo hoo! Moola! The housing bubble will never pop! The incentive was now there to give out bad mortgages with no caution, and what a better way to hide those bad mortgages than bundling them with a bunch of good ones. Know one will ever know, har, har.

Blaming people who just wanted the chance to buy a house is not a reason for this mess. They were just unsuspecting suckers that didn't know better. They didn't make the rules either.

tunnelcat wrote:[The incentive was now there to give out bad mortgages with no caution, and what a better way to hide those bad mortgages than bundling them with a bunch of good ones. .

close to spot-on, although with most of those bundles the ratio was around 10 pieces of garbage to every single good loan. CUDA, if he's reading this thread will back me up on this one: I was trying to warn folks about this back in 2005, and was roundly ridiculed by a bunch of folks who three years later were moaning about losing their 401K money. Folks who were in the know(and, by this, I mean the same old money folks who run the country) saw this mess for what it was, and bailed on bank stocks by early 2007. The rest, including the bulk of the homebuyers, were just rubes being played. For what it's worth, a glance through the economic history of the past 150 years will show that every single economic debacle for the nation was a source of major financial retrenchment for the top of the economic food chain. That's why DuPonts, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, et al, are still massively wealthy families......

We're not debating how the system works, I'm asking what's the result if that economy does fail or falter?

flip wrote:We're not debating how the system works, I'm asking what's the result if that economy does fail or falter?

I'll avoid answering that directly, because I want to state here, clearly, the point I have been trying to make for years(both online, and to the oh-so-receptive compadres at various yacht clubs, dining establishments
golf courses and hunting lodges):

what you need to worry about is the result when the gap between a small cadre of wealthy people and the rest of the population gets too large. History is VERY clear on this one: You either end up with a repressive dictatorship, or an equally repressive oligarchy. Further, the process to that outcome invariably involves massive, bloody, societal upheaval, and the risk that foreign powers take advantage of the situation. Either way, only 5% of the folks are going to like the outcome, and the rest are going to have hell to pay reversing it. Now, why should I care if I am presently part of the 'small cadre'? Because, you don't have any way of knowing or controlling the outcome of the process, and thus, one can never be sure that he, or his heirs, will be part of the surviving elite.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:


How about all that unregulated bad mortgage lending that was "bundled up" as a good investments for unsuspecting investors! Crap!

Don't blame the Capitalists for this. Blame all the bleeding liberals who pushed for affordable housing. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd being at the head of the whole calamity. In short it was a political decision that led to the mortgage melt down. The greedy Capitalists were only doing what you wanted them to do.

pure BS. It had far more to do with a twenty year push by a FEW powerful Republicans to de-regulate the investment and banking markets. You could have pushed affordable housing all you wanted to under pre-1985 rules, and this would have NEVER happened.

There is nothing in the pre-'85 rules that would have stopped Congress from ignoring the findings of regulators and dismissing them as political and racial attacks 'on a fine man and fine institution that had no sign of failure....and in fact we need MORE of these loans' which is exactly what happened! So your selective thru-the-partisan-rose-colored-glasses diagnosis is full of crap!
When the regulators that were still in place came to Congress to warn them about the dangerous situation the democrats on the committee attacked the regulators for making racial attacks.

You can find the CSPAN video all over youtube and listen to the regulators testimony and the subsequent demo-hack refusal to listen to him and we all know now, with the benefit of hindsight, that what the regulator warned of came to pass! So what good was regulation in the face of a self serving political body?
Answer: No use.

Should the regulations exist? Sure. Should the Repubs not have deregulated so much? Sure. Did the Democrats protect us from the economic impact of the morgage crisis when regulators came to them to fill them in on the pending failure? No.

So open your other eye...stop pretending the Dems don't own a BIG part of it because history and the documentation that we've all seen prove you to be wrong. Dead wrong. Fast forward to about 8 minutes if you don't believe me....

Will Robinson wrote:Should the regulations exist? Sure. Should the Repubs not have deregulated so much? Sure. Did the Democrats protect us from the economic impact of the morgage crisis when regulators came to them to fill them in on the pending failure? No.

So open your other eye...stop pretending the Dems don't own a BIG part of it because history and the documentation that we've all seen prove you to be wrong. Dead wrong.

Oh, I DO blame them, for NOT standing up for their party's principles and instead getting in bed with the rest of the Kleptocrats and becoming part of the problem with Washington now. I did blame ol' Clinton didn't I? He was pres back then and the suckup Dems in Congress followed his lead.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Should the regulations exist? Sure. Should the Repubs not have deregulated so much? Sure. Did the Democrats protect us from the economic impact of the morgage crisis when regulators came to them to fill them in on the pending failure? No.

So open your other eye...stop pretending the Dems don't own a BIG part of it because history and the documentation that we've all seen prove you to be wrong. Dead wrong.

Oh, I DO blame them, for NOT standing up for their party's principles and instead getting in bed with the rest of the Kleptocrats and becoming part of the problem with Washington now. I did blame ol' Clinton didn't I? He was pres back then and the suckup Dems in Congress followed his lead.

Fast forward to 8 minutes, Clinton disagrees with you

Uh huh. Bush also wanted homes for low income people too. It's either Bush being altruistic towards poor people or maybe create enough stimulus to cause a convenient economic bubble after the big market slump of 9/11?

tunnelcat wrote:Uh huh. Bush also wanted homes for low income people too. It's either Bush being altruistic towards poor people or maybe create enough stimulus to cause a convenient economic bubble after the big market slump of 9/11?

That some how proves that the Dems were following Clintons lead as you said, in spite of Clinton's assertion to the opposite? Or are you changing the subject again?

It almost sounds, Slick, that you condone the watering of the tree of liberty.

woodchip wrote:It almost sounds, Slick, that you condone the watering of the tree of liberty.

maybe it's late, and I'm tired, but could you explain that?