DISQUS

you have of course the right to say that on your own blog.

one can feel that your speech comes from how you have been hurt by the truth denying assertions made by Bush, Palin etc, I understand that and I am against those assertions too.

Blame the leaders, but give a chance to the people that supported them to see that they were wrong not too hurtfully it is already difficult.

They were wrong, they lost, the whole world is celebrating that America is back at last.

It was hard for you but don't be so hard on them because it is already difficult for them, it is better that they see their mistake with their own eyes.

now, to help everybody understand and see, I suggest that not only Mr Obama showed them they were wrong not to trust him.

To help everybody understand and see I would suggest Mr G.W Bush be prosecuted for having lied in order to throw his country in a war.

Then I think the people that voted for him in 2004, in spite of that, will have a chance to see that citizens have the power to choose their president, but that they should not give blank checks nor relinquish their power blindly because it could be put into bad hands and that they should exercize their power at the best of their abilities for the best of their country so as not be exposed to regret it afterwards.

congratulations to the American people on their wise and example setting choice this time.

you have of course the right to say that on your own blog.

one can feel that your speech comes from how you have been hurt by the truth denying assertions made by Bush, Palin etc, I understand that and I am against those assertions too.

Blame the leaders, but give a chance to the people that supported them to see that they were wrong not too hurtfully it is already difficult.

They were wrong, they lost, the whole world is celebrating that America is back at last.

It was hard for you but don't be so hard on them because it is already difficult for them, it is better that they see their mistake with their own eyes.

now, to help everybody understand and see, I suggest that not only Mr Obama showed them they were wrong not to trust him.

To help everybody understand and see I would suggest Mr G.W Bush be prosecuted for having lied in order to throw his country in a war.

Then I think the people that voted for him in 2004, in spite of that, will have a chance to see that citizens have the power to choose their president, but that they should not give blank checks nor relinquish their power blindly because it could be put into bad hands and that they should exercize their power at the best of their abilities for the best of their country so as not be exposed to regret it afterwards.

congratulations to the American people on their wise and example setting choice this time.

I am afraid I disagree, I don't think that had he been white Mr Obama
would not have been in that position.

I think he is exceptionnally talented and he happens to be black.

I'm french I think he is better than Sarkozy, Chirac, Mitterand, Giscard (though very clever too he never had M Obama's Charisma nor as I think his will to change things).

It is true that being black gives him an additionnal symbolic strength that would be given to his country should he be elected.

Can I make a confidence ?

Biden was referring to the next president due to be tested,
I am a non amaerican person, and I think that it is the american people as a whole who will be tested tuesday.

In a democracy the poeple is the sovereign, he chooses or "hires" his leader.

In the 2 past elections the people did not choose the best candidate,
Mr Mac Cain is better than Bush, but Mr Obama is a candidate of exceptionnal talent, I think this is an opportunity to have such a valuable person as a candidate, we haven't had somebody of that level as a candidate in France for decades.

I think a great people can not remain great and keep its leadership on the world cutlture long if he misses opportunities too often

we will see how the american people takes the test...

I am afraid I disagree, I don't think that had he been white Mr Obama
would not have been in that position.

I think he is exceptionnally talented and he happens to be black.

I'm french I think he is better than Sarkozy, Chirac, Mitterand, Giscard (though very clever too he never had M Obama's Charisma nor as I think his will to change things).

It is true that being black gives him an additionnal symbolic strength that would be given to his country should he be elected.

Can I make a confidence ?

Biden was referring to the next president due to be tested,
I am a non amaerican person, and I think that it is the american people as a whole who will be tested tuesday.

In a democracy the poeple is the sovereign, he chooses or "hires" his leader.

In the 2 past elections the people did not choose the best candidate,
Mr Mac Cain is better than Bush, but Mr Obama is a candidate of exceptionnal talent, I think this is an opportunity to have such a valuable person as a candidate, we haven't had somebody of that level as a candidate in France for decades.

I think a great people can not remain great and keep its leadership on the world cutlture long if he misses opportunities too often

we will see how the american people takes the test...

if I understand well, 2000 Mac Cain i making the case for 2008 Obama,
am I right ?

I wish Mac Cain had been the republican nominee in 2000 the world would have been not that bad off as it is now, as he would probably have been a better president than W.

if I understand well, 2000 Mac Cain i making the case for 2008 Obama,
am I right ?

I wish Mac Cain had been the republican nominee in 2000 the world would have been not that bad off as it is now, as he would probably have been a better president than W.

1) as to the diagnosis and the fact that too much debt has been accumulated I think this is quite true

2) where I strongly dissent, though not being an economist is about the cure he suggests to let markets cure the problem with their available means.

i) I think this would be an enormous mistake because this is precisely
because market were let to do anything they wanted that they put the whole world in the situation we are in today.

having been wrong once(letting markets do) we can not go on that way and rely on them to cure the mess they created.

because markets have put much more money at risk than what they had,
and thet can put our whole society at risk just for the sake of continuing to play their game not noticing a big part of the world is cushing as a result.

there are higher objectives than just letting market do whatever they want, for instance trying not too lose too many jobs, and businesses that make live every country.

ii) economy and capitalism is sometimes difficult to understand but I think we can better understand it by drawing analogies.

ii.1) fully state ruled economies have made the proof they do not work, cf comunism, USSR etc.

the reason behind that is that a soviet peasant is not encouraged to make the most of the land he is cultivating, if he is working for the sake of the state.
as opposed to a peasant working for his family, he'll be encouraged to do more if it can allow his children to directly be better off.

ii.2) the success of capitalism can be explained by its ressemblance to the way nature works

that's the reason why it integrates naturally incentives for individual to succeed because they will benefit from that.

but like nature, capitalism has to be tamed.

we would not live naked in caves anymore, we have tamed nature by using clothes, flats and houses, and heating in winter to offset the coldness of that season.

with capitalism this is the same thing, we have to set up mecanisms to offset its intrinsic jungle nature :
we have to acknowledge that people must have some rest between working days, people even very productive ceo are liable to catch an illness and then to be able to stop working during the time the recover etc.

Caitalism has to be accompagnied with rules, that have the purpose to
allow the system to last and to take into consideration the fact that people are human beings.

The real question is how to adjust the rules level that has to come with caitalism and to what extent ?

not enough rules results in people having too much difficulty to live in the society or the system can crush on its own (because it does not comprise safe guarding mecanism that prevent the system to kill itself, this is the purpose of the rules).

too much rules revents the system from being efficient in creating wealth, too much ressources are devoted to its own control

=> a balance has to be found in the level of rules to apply and in their definition

=> this rules have to change with time because, the condition in which
the economy operate evolve "naturally" so to say and the rules,
that are defined do not evolve naturaly with it and have to be adjusted to the evolution of the economy.

Now what can we say :

we have the proof of it now.
finance people were allowed to engage in risky investments tremendous
amount of money, without having considered the worst scenario which took place in the end : prices of homes going down, interests for loans going up making people unable to pay their loans and living to banks houses that had lost values, all that multiplied by 100 000 homes and more...

More and or better regulation is to be designed.
yes we will have to avoid an excess of rule that could make less efficient.
a good balance has to be found at an improved level of regulations
imposing regulation s one of the function of countries and what they do best.

that'why we should not let market cure what they have damaged because
it does not work

1) as to the diagnosis and the fact that too much debt has been accumulated I think this is quite true

2) where I strongly dissent, though not being an economist is about the cure he suggests to let markets cure the problem with their available means.

i) I think this would be an enormous mistake because this is precisely
because market were let to do anything they wanted that they put the whole world in the situation we are in today.

having been wrong once(letting markets do) we can not go on that way and rely on them to cure the mess they created.

because markets have put much more money at risk than what they had,
and thet can put our whole society at risk just for the sake of continuing to play their game not noticing a big part of the world is cushing as a result.

there are higher objectives than just letting market do whatever they want, for instance trying not too lose too many jobs, and businesses that make live every country.

ii) economy and capitalism is sometimes difficult to understand but I think we can better understand it by drawing analogies.

ii.1) fully state ruled economies have made the proof they do not work, cf comunism, USSR etc.

the reason behind that is that a soviet peasant is not encouraged to make the most of the land he is cultivating, if he is working for the sake of the state.
as opposed to a peasant working for his family, he'll be encouraged to do more if it can allow his children to directly be better off.

ii.2) the success of capitalism can be explained by its ressemblance to the way nature works

that's the reason why it integrates naturally incentives for individual to succeed because they will benefit from that.

but like nature, capitalism has to be tamed.

we would not live naked in caves anymore, we have tamed nature by using clothes, flats and houses, and heating in winter to offset the coldness of that season.

with capitalism this is the same thing, we have to set up mecanisms to offset its intrinsic jungle nature :
we have to acknowledge that people must have some rest between working days, people even very productive ceo are liable to catch an illness and then to be able to stop working during the time the recover etc.

Caitalism has to be accompagnied with rules, that have the purpose to
allow the system to last and to take into consideration the fact that people are human beings.

The real question is how to adjust the rules level that has to come with caitalism and to what extent ?

not enough rules results in people having too much difficulty to live in the society or the system can crush on its own (because it does not comprise safe guarding mecanism that prevent the system to kill itself, this is the purpose of the rules).

too much rules revents the system from being efficient in creating wealth, too much ressources are devoted to its own control

=> a balance has to be found in the level of rules to apply and in their definition

=> this rules have to change with time because, the condition in which
the economy operate evolve "naturally" so to say and the rules,
that are defined do not evolve naturaly with it and have to be adjusted to the evolution of the economy.

Now what can we say :

we have the proof of it now.
finance people were allowed to engage in risky investments tremendous
amount of money, without having considered the worst scenario which took place in the end : prices of homes going down, interests for loans going up making people unable to pay their loans and living to banks houses that had lost values, all that multiplied by 100 000 homes and more...

More and or better regulation is to be designed.
yes we will have to avoid an excess of rule that could make less efficient.
a good balance has to be found at an improved level of regulations
imposing regulation s one of the function of countries and what they do best.

that'why we should not let market cure what they have damaged because
it does not work