Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

who destroyed the usa?

banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 5:20:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
After so maney setbacks in so meny directions economical military ,politcal,etc. we have to stop procastinating and start evaluating how we have been destroyed? No longer number one militarily !! We are not the strongest banking system any more we are like guatamallah in banking. No longer indusrial at all!! After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china he then inacted mortgage programs to artificialy boost the economy till the crash of lost industry will kick in... Now abama in a efford to make the world like us more resulted that arabs unite to destroy the dollar with comunist Iran speeds up their nuks.. And teror groups became bolder Russia comes closer And we are gone
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 5:37:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Geez, it's been destroyed? It was still there in March. When did this happen and why wasn't I told?

No longer number one militarily !!

Completely wrong.

We are not the strongest banking system any more

Never was.

we are like guatamallah in banking.

Not true.

No longer indusrial at all!!

Absolutely false.

After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china

He never did any such thing.

he then inacted mortgage programs to

That happened mostly under Bush.

artificialy boost the economy

No, that was the Fed.

till the crash of lost industry will kick in...

It won't. Moving menial jobs to China is *good* for the economy,

Now abama in a efford to make the world like us more

Que?

resulted that arabs unite to destroy the dollar

That statement has no connection to reality.

with comunist Iran

Bzzzzzzt...WRONG!

speeds up their nuks..

They aren't.

And teror groups became bolder

Source for that?

Russia comes closer

No, it's still where it used to be, on the otehr side or Berings straight from Alaska.

And we are gone

No. only you.

I don't think I ever seen so many factual errors in such a short time.
So prove me wrong, then.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 10:23:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 5:20:53 AM, banker wrote:
After so maney setbacks in so meny directions economical military ,politcal,etc. we have to stop procastinating and start evaluating how we have been destroyed? No longer number one militarily !! We are not the strongest banking system any more we are like guatamallah in banking. No longer indusrial at all!! After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china he then inacted mortgage programs to artificialy boost the economy till the crash of lost industry will kick in... Now abama in a efford to make the world like us more resulted that arabs unite to destroy the dollar with comunist Iran speeds up their nuks.. And teror groups became bolder Russia comes closer And we are gone

Regbro is right... but if you want a fast answer...

Our politicians have done it over time.
Veering so far from our constitution was not the goal when we first started...

It may have looked good for a few years, but the decisions made by presidents was only a band-aid... we are now bleeding out because the band-aids failed.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 10:29:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Common Cents,
What specific areas have we "veered" so far away from our constitution that our country is in such dire straits?

You often talk about constitutional abuses. Now I'm calling you out. What specific abuses have you so concerned?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:01:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 10:29:43 AM, JBlake wrote:
Common Cents,
What specific areas have we "veered" so far away from our constitution that our country is in such dire straits?

You often talk about constitutional abuses. Now I'm calling you out. What specific abuses have you so concerned?

1. Patriot act
2. Going to war with out a declaration
(Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia)
last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment
3. The Federal Reserve System is NOT constitutional. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S.
4. There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in Medicare
5. Cap and trade
6. Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, first amendment.
7. Central American Free Trade Agreement
8. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics

and thats just off the top of my head... i will go on later.

check out
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:03:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 11:01:51 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/8/2009 10:29:43 AM, JBlake wrote:
Common Cents,
What specific areas have we "veered" so far away from our constitution that our country is in such dire straits?

You often talk about constitutional abuses. Now I'm calling you out. What specific abuses have you so concerned?

1. Patriot act
2. Going to war with out a declaration
(Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia)
last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment
3. The Federal Reserve System is NOT constitutional. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S.
4. There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in Medicare
5. Cap and trade
6. Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, first amendment.
7. Central American Free Trade Agreement
8. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics

and thats just off the top of my head... i will go on later.

check out
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

also

http://www.krusch.com...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:09:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 11:01:51 AM, comoncents wrote:

1. Patriot act
2. Going to war with out a declaration
(Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia)
last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment
3. The Federal Reserve System is NOT constitutional. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S.
4. There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in Medicare
5. Cap and trade
6. Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, first amendment.
7. Central American Free Trade Agreement
8. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics

and thats just off the top of my head... i will go on later.

check out
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

He's got a point this time. You forgot to mention the IRS :)
President of DDO
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:24:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 11:01:51 AM, comoncents wrote:
1. Patriot act
2. Going to war with out a declaration
(Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia)
last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment
3. The Federal Reserve System is NOT constitutional. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S.
4. There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in Medicare
5. Cap and trade
6. Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, first amendment.
7. Central American Free Trade Agreement
8. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics

I'm hoping that you will become more specific in airing your grievances and less general and broad.

1. Agreed, some portions of the Patriot Act should be a concern. Which aspects concern you?
2. I would tend to agree with you that this is a concern that should be immediately remedied. However, it is not strictly unconstitutional. The President, as Commander in Chief, has the ability to make war. This is seen in the const. debates in which they specifically replaced "make war" with "declare war", as the sole power of the legislature. It seems that this was intended only for presidents to repel a sudden invasion, but has been interpreted to mean otherwise. So while there is a constitutional basis for the President's power to make war, it is a valid concern that you and I share. The only correction for this would be an Amendment to the constitution.
3. Necessary and Proper Clause
4. General Welfare Clause
5. General Welfare Clause
6. What Disorderly Conduct Ordinance?
7. What about the Central American Free Trade Agreement is a concern of you?
8. I agree with you that this is troubling. I disagree that it is responsible for our nation allegedly being in dire straits.

Less broad, more specifics.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:35:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I disagree about the Federal Reserve... I think the banking system in the U.S. is ridiculous and truly is a form of slavery, let alone unconstitutional. There is no democracy in the banking system, and our government is practically as powerless as the people to fix it. That's the problem. As far as the trade thing, I suspect he's talking more about that and NAFTA and/or possibly the creation of the Amero, but I couldn't tell you for sure. Let's wait for his response.
President of DDO
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:46:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 10:23:35 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/8/2009 5:20:53 AM, banker wrote:
After so maney setbacks in so meny directions economical military ,politcal,etc. we have to stop procastinating and start evaluating how we have been destroyed? No longer number one militarily !! We are not the strongest banking system any more we are like guatamallah in banking. No longer indusrial at all!! After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china he then inacted mortgage programs to artificialy boost the economy till the crash of lost industry will kick in... Now abama in a efford to make the world like us more resulted that arabs unite to destroy the dollar with comunist Iran speeds up their nuks.. And teror groups became bolder Russia comes closer And we are gone

Regbro is right... but if you want a fast answer...


Our politicians have done it over time.
Veering so far from our constitution was not the goal when we first started...

It may have looked good for a few years, but the decisions made by presidents was only a band-aid... we are now bleeding out because the band-aids failed.

Apearintly you have to be updated with news drudgereport is a good start...!!

Nafta was started not by bush incase your more concerened with partisan politics then facts..! You might take advantage of the fact that the effect of nafta took till bush years

Procrastinating and ignoring vanizuala hosting russia

Procastinating and disregarding collapse of our banking system are only pointing out that I was right in my claim that despite daily head lines about closing leahmen brothers bailing out aig vicovia mergers some still belive its logical to procastinate and debate this point...!!

Just to get you updated iran just finished testing new missles

By the way news is not only important to reed when bush is in office
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 12:08:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 11:09:42 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/8/2009 11:01:51 AM, comoncents wrote:

1. Patriot act
2. Going to war with out a declaration
(Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia)
last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment
3. The Federal Reserve System is NOT constitutional. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S.
4. There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in Medicare
5. Cap and trade
6. Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, first amendment.
7. Central American Free Trade Agreement
8. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics

and thats just off the top of my head... i will go on later.

check out
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

He's got a point this time. You forgot to mention the IRS :)

Yep...

IRS also
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 12:23:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 11:35:33 AM, theLwerd wrote:
NAFTA and/or possibly the creation of the Amero, is increasing the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty. unconstitutional
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 12:27:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 12:23:56 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 10/8/2009 11:35:33 AM, theLwerd wrote:
NAFTA and/or possibly the creation of the Amero, is increasing the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty. unconstitutional

I have point out that if anything, the other participating countries had their sovereignty eroded more than the US ever has. I also fail to see how it is unconstitutional; it is a trade deal, a contract between two governments designed to increase trade and make more money. Is there something unconstitutional about trade?

And as far as I'm aware, there isn't any provisions saying that increasing the size of government is counter to the Constitution.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 12:47:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 11:01:51 AM, comoncents wrote:
1. Patriot act

Agreed.

2. Going to war with out a declaration
(Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia)

Well, they are not actually wars, then. ;) (And indeed most of them weren't).

Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14. War; Military Establishment

Excuse my unfamiliarity with the constitution, but where are those? I can't find any "Clause 11", and I can't find any mention that it's not allowed to wage wars without declaration.

3. The Federal Reserve System is NOT constitutional. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S.

"The Congress shall have power ... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures"

Apparently the federal reserve system is eminently constitutional.

4. There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in Medicare

"The Congress shall have power ... To provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

*Very* open ended that one. :-)

5. Cap and trade
6. Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, first amendment.
7. Central American Free Trade Agreement
8. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics

and thats just off the top of my head... i will go on later.

You are going to have to explain why they are unconstitutional. Or well, you don't have to, I don't actually care. :)
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 12:53:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 11:46:31 AM, banker wrote:
Apearintly you have to be updated with news drudgereport is a good start...!!

Said the guy who had at least eleven factual errors in five sentences.

Nafta was started not by bush incase your more concerened with partisan politics then facts..!

It would probably be a better idea to be more concerned with facts. You should try it.

You might take advantage of the fact that the effect of nafta took till bush years

What nonsense.

Procrastinating and ignoring vanizuala hosting russia

Vanizuala. Ah, teh cuontre ver Chorseviss ees il presidork!

What a joke.
So prove me wrong, then.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 1:22:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
*Fact checking*

At 10/8/2009 5:37:48 AM, regebro wrote:
Geez, it's been destroyed? It was still there in March. When did this happen and why wasn't I told?

No longer number one militarily !!

Completely wrong.

Check.

We are not the strongest banking system any more

Never was.

Check.

we are like guatamallah in banking.

Not true.

Check.

No longer indusrial at all!!

Absolutely false.

Right to a degree - The US does not produce as much goods for itself as it should.

After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china

He never did any such thing.

Yes he did. Clinton signed a FTA - which are fail as usual.

he then inacted mortgage programs to

That happened mostly under Bush.

Kinda, kinda not. Clinton started it off - While Chris Dodd and Barney Frank put the nail in the coffin during the Bush admin.

artificialy boost the economy

No, that was the Fed.

Check.

till the crash of lost industry will kick in...

It won't. Moving menial jobs to China is *good* for the economy,

Not when there is 10% unemployment.

resulted that arabs unite to destroy the dollar

That statement has no connection to reality.

The US has destroyed it's own dollar - with the main vehicle being the Fed.

with comunist Iran

Bzzzzzzt...WRONG!

Check.

speeds up their nuks..

They aren't.

They aren't? Of course Iran is building nukes.

And teror groups became bolder

Source for that?

Common sense - terrorism is on the rise.

Russia comes closer

No, it's still where it used to be, on the otehr side or Berings straight from Alaska.

Not funny... The US has to worry about China, not so much Russia.

I don't think I ever seen so many factual errors in such a short time.

Same - except that you, yourself added to the errors.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 2:10:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 1:22:54 PM, Nags wrote:
No longer indusrial at all!!

Absolutely false.

Right to a degree - The US does not produce as much goods for itself as it should.

There is not "should". The absolutely best for the US is free trade. If that means the industrial production gets smaller in the US then that's because it is the best.

But US industrial output is still very large.

After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china

He never did any such thing.

Yes he did. Clinton signed a FTA - which are fail as usual.

So? That is firstly not convincing, and secondly the industrial economy of the US has not been handed over to China. That's a myth. US Industrial production 2008 was 9768 dollars per person. Chinese industrial production was 1545,48 per person. That's only a sixth. China is bigger, so in total US industrial output is only 40% bigger than chinas, but that's an unfair comparison.

he then inacted mortgage programs to

That happened mostly under Bush.

Kinda, kinda not. Clinton started it off - While Chris Dodd and Barney Frank put the nail in the coffin during the Bush admin.

Well, OK, "mostly" is hard to quantify in this case.

It won't. Moving menial jobs to China is *good* for the economy,

Not when there is 10% unemployment.

Yes, then as well. I end up here all the time, I don't want to have to try to teach people basic economics on discussion forums, it's a really sucky media for teaching stuff like that.

The US has destroyed it's own dollar - with the main vehicle being the Fed.

And the deficit.

speeds up their nuks..

They aren't.

They aren't? Of course Iran is building nukes.

Speed up, he said. They are not speeding anything up. In fact, with Obama they seem to get less hysterical.

And teror groups became bolder

Source for that?

Common sense - terrorism is on the rise.

Source for that?

Not funny... The US has to worry about China, not so much Russia.

Short term Russia is a bigger risk towards peace. They are behaving like international bullies. And if you, like banker, mean economically, that's based on some sort of weird idea that it's bad for the US that other countries get richer. It couldn't be more wrong.

Same - except that you, yourself added to the errors.

Then you must be hallucinating and seeing things I didn't write.
So prove me wrong, then.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 5:27:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 2:10:00 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/8/2009 1:22:54 PM, Nags wrote:
Right to a degree - The US does not produce as much goods for itself as it should.

There is not "should". The absolutely best for the US is free trade. If that means the industrial production gets smaller in the US then that's because it is the best.

I disagree here. A country should be able to produce goods for itself. The US-China trade deficit is enormous and unsustainable - China is becoming stronger and stronger while the US is becoming weaker and weaker, because of free trade.

But US industrial output is still very large.

Yes he did. Clinton signed a FTA - which are fail as usual.

So? That is firstly not convincing, and secondly the industrial economy of the US has not been handed over to China. That's a myth. US Industrial production 2008 was 9768 dollars per person. Chinese industrial production was 1545,48 per person. That's only a sixth. China is bigger, so in total US industrial output is only 40% bigger than chinas, but that's an unfair comparison.

Source please? Also, I think it's obvious that US workers get paid more than Chinese. So, yes, unfair comparison.

Kinda, kinda not. Clinton started it off - While Chris Dodd and Barney Frank put the nail in the coffin during the Bush admin.

Well, OK, "mostly" is hard to quantify in this case.

Sure - I'm just making the point that the mortgage/housing problems is mainly because of Dems, more concisely - Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank.

Not when there is 10% unemployment.

Yes, then as well. I end up here all the time, I don't want to have to try to teach people basic economics on discussion forums, it's a really sucky media for teaching stuff like that.

I don't think the government should intervene in free trade, but I think it is quite obvious that US citizens need jobs right now, and shipping them off to China is not in the US citizens' best interests.

The US has destroyed it's own dollar - with the main vehicle being the Fed.

And the deficit.

Kinda, not so much though. The Fed and out of control spending is the cause, the deficit and debt are the effects.

They aren't? Of course Iran is building nukes.

Speed up, he said. They are not speeding anything up. In fact, with Obama they seem to get less hysterical.

It seems they like Iran is trying much harder to get nukes now during the Obama admin versus the Bush admin - mostly because the Bush admin was much tougher on Iran with sanctions and what-not. However, I do agree with Obama's current policy moreso than Bush's.

Common sense - terrorism is on the rise.

Source for that?

Sources against?

Not funny... The US has to worry about China, not so much Russia.

Short term Russia is a bigger risk towards peace. They are behaving like international bullies. And if you, like banker, mean economically, that's based on some sort of weird idea that it's bad for the US that other countries get richer. It couldn't be more wrong.

How "couldn't [it] be more wrong" that China getting richer than the US is bad for the US?

Same - except that you, yourself added to the errors.

Then you must be hallucinating and seeing things I didn't write.

Nope.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 5:40:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 5:27:17 PM, Nags wrote:
I disagree here. A country should be able to produce goods for itself. The US-China trade deficit is enormous and unsustainable - China is becoming stronger and stronger while the US is becoming weaker and weaker, because of free trade.

I'd like to see proof of this assertion. The fact that China is starting to drop its trade barriers should be a cue that the country you say is getting "stronger and stronger" is following the ideas of the country you claim is getting "weaker and weaker." Doesn't quite make sense, does it.

How "couldn't [it] be more wrong" that China getting richer than the US is bad for the US?

I can think of one way; more competition. Free marketers like yourself always rail on about how good competition is - well, China is the United States' competition, along with he EU, India, etc. More competition means better deals. Better deals means more money. More money means better standards of living. Better standards of living mean more productivity, and more productivity means more products, which are sold with better deals... etc.

Another way is simply, the richer China is, the more trade is occurring. China's money comes from its ability as a major producer and trader in the world. The more money China has, the more the United States is benefiting from trade with China. That is pretty good.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 5:48:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 5:40:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/8/2009 5:27:17 PM, Nags wrote:
I disagree here. A country should be able to produce goods for itself. The US-China trade deficit is enormous and unsustainable - China is becoming stronger and stronger while the US is becoming weaker and weaker, because of free trade.

I'd like to see proof of this assertion. The fact that China is starting to drop its trade barriers should be a cue that the country you say is getting "stronger and stronger" is following the ideas of the country you claim is getting "weaker and weaker." Doesn't quite make sense, does it.

It's called one-sided trade. China is exporting virtually everything, while not needing to import much. The US has to import virtually everything, while exporting very little. China profits, US does not. Quite simple actually.

How "couldn't [it] be more wrong" that China getting richer than the US is bad for the US?

I can think of one way; more competition. Free marketers like yourself always rail on about how good competition is - well, China is the United States' competition, along with he EU, India, etc.

Corporations&companies =/= countries

More competition means better deals.

For the most part.

Better deals means more money.

You can't buy products if you don't have a job/money. The unemployment rate in the US is ~10% right now - which means many Americans don't have money.

More money means better standards of living.

Not necesarrily. Inflation negates more money. Just because you have greater numbers of money, doesn't mean you have greater value of money.

Better standards of living mean more productivity

How did you make this connection? Lol.

and more productivity means more products, which are sold with better deals... etc.

See above.

Another way is simply, the richer China is, the more trade is occurring. China's money comes from its ability as a major producer and trader in the world. The more money China has, the more the United States is benefiting from trade with China. That is pretty good.

China is benefiting, yes. The US is not benefiting.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 6:14:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 5:48:27 PM, Nags wrote:
It's called one-sided trade. China is exporting virtually everything, while not needing to import much. The US has to import virtually everything, while exporting very little. China profits, US does not. Quite simple actually.

The US exports quite a lot. $1.3 trillion dollar in exports isn't a lot to you?

China also imports quit a lot - $1 trillion dollars in fact. China only exports $1.4 trillion. Not much of a difference.

See, the problem here isn't "one sided trade" - the problem is than the United States isn't trading enough. China is willing to open up and import all sorts of crazy sh*t - free trade isn't simply "free trade," it is called reciprocity. If the US opens up for exports, China will open up for imports.

Corporations&companies =/= countries

I disagree.

You can't buy products if you don't have a job/money. The unemployment rate in the US is ~10% right now - which means many Americans don't have money.

Which is why there is something called welfare, or unemployment insurance, or initiatives to get these people back into a job.

Plus, there will always be a need to buy products. Basic products are constantly needed and rest assured, they will be bought. There will always be a cycle of continuous production and purchase.

Not necesarrily. Inflation negates more money. Just because you have greater numbers of money, doesn't mean you have greater value of money.

Inflation is kept down when there is continuous, stable commodity trading. The value of the money in question will be stable when you secure proper markets, and the best way to do that is through free trade.

How did you make this connection? Lol.

The higher the standard of living is for an individual, the more productivity there will be. It is simple - if you have a high standard of living, you most likely have a job; if you have a job, you're being productive; if you want to keep that standard of living, you need to be productive, and the higher that standard of living is, the more incentive you have to keep it. No one wants to go from sports cars and mansions to rented Hondas and bachelor apartments.

China is benefiting, yes. The US is not benefiting.

Are you kidding? Have you seen all those nice products China is sending us? They're cheap, they're great, and people buy it. Corporations selling those products then pay taxes on it, and then there is a sales tax, etc., which means the US government gets money, corporations make a profit, and citizens get products.

Benefits!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 6:30:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 6:14:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/8/2009 5:48:27 PM, Nags wrote:
It's called one-sided trade. China is exporting virtually everything, while not needing to import much. The US has to import virtually everything, while exporting very little. China profits, US does not. Quite simple actually.

The US exports quite a lot. $1.3 trillion dollar in exports isn't a lot to you?

China also imports quit a lot - $1 trillion dollars in fact. China only exports $1.4 trillion. Not much of a difference.

The trade balance for the US vs. China is -$268,039,800,000. That's about 1/3rd of the total US trade deficit. This is unsustainable. We are figuratively, getting raped.

See, the problem here isn't "one sided trade" - the problem is than the United States isn't trading enough. China is willing to open up and import all sorts of crazy sh*t - free trade isn't simply "free trade," it is called reciprocity. If the US opens up for exports, China will open up for imports.

China doesn't need to open up for imports. It has everything it needs within it's own borders.

Corporations&companies =/= countries

I disagree.

Why...? Companies do have to worry about turning a profit, countries don't. Countries can lead deficits and debts for virtually infinite amounts of time, whereas companies can not. Quite different.

You can't buy products if you don't have a job/money. The unemployment rate in the US is ~10% right now - which means many Americans don't have money.

Which is why there is something called welfare, or unemployment insurance, or initiatives to get these people back into a job.

Me don't like.

Plus, there will always be a need to buy products. Basic products are constantly needed and rest assured, they will be bought. There will always be a cycle of continuous production and purchase.

Correct. All simple products are "Made in China." China wins.

Not necesarrily. Inflation negates more money. Just because you have greater numbers of money, doesn't mean you have greater value of money.

Inflation is kept down when there is continuous, stable commodity trading. The value of the money in question will be stable when you secure proper markets, and the best way to do that is through free trade.

Post hoc. The notion that "continuous, stable commodity trading" leads to decreased inflation is quite simply, ridiculous.

How did you make this connection? Lol.

The higher the standard of living is for an individual, the more productivity there will be. It is simple - if you have a high standard of living, you most likely have a job; if you have a job, you're being productive; if you want to keep that standard of living, you need to be productive, and the higher that standard of living is, the more incentive you have to keep it. No one wants to go from sports cars and mansions to rented Hondas and bachelor apartments.

Productivity leads to a higher standard of living, not vice-versa. Besides putting forth a false analogy, it fails when the country taxes the more productive workers more, leading to a decreased standard of living which leads to less productivity.

China is benefiting, yes. The US is not benefiting.

Are you kidding? Have you seen all those nice products China is sending us? They're cheap, they're great, and people buy it. Corporations selling those products then pay taxes on it, and then there is a sales tax, etc., which means the US government gets money, corporations make a profit, and citizens get products.

Benefits!

Must you take everything literally...? China benefits [much more] than the US benefits.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 6:53:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 6:30:31 PM, Nags wrote:
The trade balance for the US vs. China is -$268,039,800,000. That's about 1/3rd of the total US trade deficit. This is unsustainable. We are figuratively, getting raped.

Then increase trade!

China doesn't need to open up for imports. It has everything it needs within it's own borders.

That is definitely not true. Oil, minerals, expertise, chemicals, machinery, etc. The idea that China is somehow sustainable is an incorrect assumption.

Why...? Companies do have to worry about turning a profit, countries don't. Countries can lead deficits and debts for virtually infinite amounts of time, whereas companies can not. Quite different.

The idea that it is OK for countries to continue structural deficits and debt isn't very responsible. And yes, while it may not have the automatic effect that it has on businesses, it is still a very serious, very dangerous and ultimately, very bad stigma to have on you come election time.

Correct. All simple products are "Made in China." China wins.

The US wins, as well.

Post hoc. The notion that "continuous, stable commodity trading" leads to decreased inflation is quite simply, ridiculous.

I didn't say decreased - I said stable.

Productivity leads to a higher standard of living, not vice-versa.

I stated that with the "false analogy" provided, as well - but a high standard of living gives enough incentive for someone to be productive. It is a vicious circle.

Besides putting forth a false analogy, it fails when the country taxes the more productive workers more, leading to a decreased standard of living which leads to less productivity.

Oh, bother, bother. When those taxes take away 100% of the income, and those "more productive" workers can't afford both basic and unneeded products easily, then come and complain.

Must you take everything literally...? China benefits [much more] than the US benefits.

Which is why the US must start increasing trade reciprocity with China, in order to get more benefits than you're currently getting. The solution isn't to cut off trade - that leads to a sharper decline in benefits currently granted, and lowers the bar of how much benefit you'll get in the future.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 7:08:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 6:53:54 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/8/2009 6:30:31 PM, Nags wrote:
The trade balance for the US vs. China is -$268,039,800,000. That's about 1/3rd of the total US trade deficit. This is unsustainable. We are figuratively, getting raped.

Then increase trade!

That's what I've been saying...

China doesn't need to open up for imports. It has everything it needs within it's own borders.

That is definitely not true. Oil, minerals, expertise, chemicals, machinery, etc. The idea that China is somehow sustainable is an incorrect assumption.

More sustainable than any other country on Earth.

Why...? Companies do have to worry about turning a profit, countries don't. Countries can lead deficits and debts for virtually infinite amounts of time, whereas companies can not. Quite different.

The idea that it is OK for countries to continue structural deficits and debt isn't very responsible. And yes, while it may not have the automatic effect that it has on businesses, it is still a very serious, very dangerous and ultimately, very bad stigma to have on you come election time.

Straw man. I never said it was OK to continue structural deficits and debt, I merely said that countries CAN do so whereas companies can not. Straw man. Straw man. Straw man.

Correct. All simple products are "Made in China." China wins.

The US wins, as well.

If you consider losing by hundreds of billions of dollars as winning, then be my guest.

Post hoc. The notion that "continuous, stable commodity trading" leads to decreased inflation is quite simply, ridiculous.

I didn't say decreased - I said stable.

Either way, it's still post hoc.

Productivity leads to a higher standard of living, not vice-versa.

I stated that with the "false analogy" provided, as well - but a high standard of living gives enough incentive for someone to be productive. It is a vicious circle.

...... You dropped your point.

Besides putting forth a false analogy, it fails when the country taxes the more productive workers more, leading to a decreased standard of living which leads to less productivity.

Oh, bother, bother. When those taxes take away 100% of the income, and those "more productive" workers can't afford both basic and unneeded products easily, then come and complain.

Why must I reach your criteria to complain? Straw man.

Must you take everything literally...? China benefits [much more] than the US benefits.

Which is why the US must start increasing trade reciprocity with China, in order to get more benefits than you're currently getting. The solution isn't to cut off trade - that leads to a sharper decline in benefits currently granted, and lowers the bar of how much benefit you'll get in the future.

The solution is to export more, while importing less - not continuing on the with the false premise that free trade is good no matter what.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 7:43:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 7:08:02 PM, Nags wrote:
That's what I've been saying...

You've been arguing against free trade though. That is counter-intuitive.

More sustainable than any other country on Earth.

So you can tell me why they're looking to Africa, India and Europe for increased access to minerals, expertise, and oil in order to combat their rampant growth not only population wise, but because of the increased demand for better and more products stemming from their bloated cities? I mean, if they're that sustainable, this wouldn't be an issue.

Straw man. I never said it was OK to continue structural deficits and debt, I merely said that countries CAN do so whereas companies can not. Straw man. Straw man. Straw man.

Not a straw man, just a bad choice of wording. My apologies.

What I should have said was that the idea that countries can rack up all these structural deficits and debts is not a very sound one.

Well, actually no, sorry, they can do it - the idea that it is OK for them to is wrong. Because, I mean, that is where it really comes down, whether it is OK for them to or not. Just like companies can run themselves into the ground, it isn't OK for them to do so. Same with governments.

Maybe I didn't word it bad after all. Have you never been told by a teacher in class when you ask "Can I go to the washroom?," that it is actually "May I go to the washroom?"

If you consider losing by hundreds of billions of dollars as winning, then be my guest.

The US wins with cheap products and lots of spending from individuals. That is a definite win.

...... You dropped your point.

How?

Why must I reach your criteria to complain? Straw man.

Well, you can complain if you want, but I may not listen.

The solution is to export more, while importing less - not continuing on the with the false premise that free trade is good no matter what.

Except your missing the point that in order for you to export more, you need markets to export to, and no market in their right mind will put themselves up for slaughter - they'll ask to export right back to you. Reciprocity.

I mean, did you actually expect that markets will open their doors to US products, and not expect to be able to sell their products in return? Free markets enable countries to ship products back and forth easily, quickly and cheaply. It is a win-win, and if you have a trade deficit, you better look to fixing it, otherwise you're just screwing yourself.

What is thing I keep saying - opportunity? You have the opportunity to increase trade, make money and slash deficits with free trade. If you don't take up the opportunity presented, then don't complain.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 9:43:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 1:22:54 PM, Nags wrote:
*Fact checking*

At 10/8/2009 5:37:48 AM, regebro wrote:
Geez, it's been destroyed? It was still there in March. When did this happen and why wasn't I told?

No longer number one militarily !!

Completely wrong.

Check.

We are not the strongest banking system any more

Never was.
you would make a good secretary since what you miss in logic your making up with great spelling...!!
Check.

we are like guatamallah in banking.

Not true. If 2 +2 is 7 then your math is right however sinse guatamala is number 43 and we are 44 your math is not perfect

Check.

No longer indusrial at all!!

Absolutely false. So you believe its false but you still blame bush on false things... I love your spelling

Also I assume you have not been in bufflo ny or detroit mi a long time those factories are closed
Right to a degree - The US does not produce as much goods for itself as it should. Lol wonder why you say that

After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china

He never did any such thing. Well depands what "did" means...

Yes he did. Clinton signed a FTA - which are fail as usual.

he then inacted mortgage programs to

That happened mostly under Bush.

So you thank bush for making home ownership programs..? Or you blame him for nafta..! I believe your explenation will be with awesome spelling!
Kinda, kinda not. Clinton started it off - While Chris Dodd and Barney Frank put the nail in the coffin during the Bush admin.

artificialy boost the economy

No, that was the Fed.
but when fed did something under bush it was bush...!! Lol.
I wonder why I argued with secretaries. Your spelling is great so I will let you call me stupid and instead watch you proof why when facts can't proof your point name calls are very handy...!

Interesting how feds created nafta
Check.

till the crash of lost industry will kick in...

It won't. Moving menial jobs to China is *good* for the economy,
so now you say it was actualy moved but only menial jobs why are you calling industrial menial
I assume all the hard industrial (menial) workers was only important for china economy not for our..!


Not when there is 10% unemployment.

resulted that arabs unite to destroy the dollar

That statement has no connection to reality.

The US has destroyed it's own dollar - with the main vehicle being the Fed. Check drudge as the source

with comunist Iran
communist and china are united iran is major oil supplier for china
Bzzzzzzt...WRONG!

Check.

speeds up their nuks..

They aren't.

They aren't? Of course Iran is building nukes.

And teror groups became bolder

Source for that?
again come to nyc subway and get in tuch with reality or go to any newspaper reporting on afghanistan
Common sense - terrorism is on the rise.

Russia comes closer

No, it's still where it used to be, on the otehr side or Berings straight from Alaska.

Well how old are you?
Not funny... The US has to worry about China, not so much Russia.

I don't think I ever seen so many factual errors in such a short time.

Same - except that you, yourself added to the errors.
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:17:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 5:27:17 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/8/2009 2:10:00 PM, regebro wrote:
There is not "should". The absolutely best for the US is free trade. If that means the industrial production gets smaller in the US then that's because it is the best.

I disagree here. A country should be able to produce goods for itself. The US-China trade deficit is enormous and unsustainable - China is becoming stronger and stronger while the US is becoming weaker and weaker, because of free trade.

First time I've ever seen a libertarian who is against free trade. Normally I would just tell you to learn economics, because I've tried to teach socialists basic economics via discussion forums what seems an infinite amount of time before, but since you call yourself a libertarian you might have something in your head, so I'm willing to try again we you.

How do you propose we do this? I guess a new thread is in order?

Source please?

Wikipedia.

Also, I think it's obvious that US workers get paid more than Chinese. So, yes, unfair comparison.

How does that make it unfair? Are you seriously proposing that US industrial wages should be lowered to Chinese levels?

Well, OK, "mostly" is hard to quantify in this case.

Sure - I'm just making the point that the mortgage/housing problems is mainly because of Dems, more concisely - Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank.

And as I said, "mostly" (or "mainly") is hard to quantify here.

Yes, then as well. I end up here all the time, I don't want to have to try to teach people basic economics on discussion forums, it's a really sucky media for teaching stuff like that.

I don't think the government should intervene in free trade

Well obviously you do, since you claim that countries should produce their own stuff. That's only possible if you have high level protectionism. The whole point of government NOT interfering is that it's better for countries to NOT produce their own stuff. That's what trade is all about.

but I think it is quite obvious that US citizens need jobs right now, and shipping them off to China is not in the US citizens' best interests.

And you are right, it is quite obvious. However, it's wrong. Why it's bad for the economy to prevent jobs from going abroad is quite non-obvious, but it is still how it is.

The US has destroyed it's own dollar - with the main vehicle being the Fed.

And the deficit.

Kinda, not so much though.

Yes, quite so much.

The Fed and out of control spending is the cause, the deficit and debt are the effects.

Making a difference on the deficit and out of control spending is ridiculous. You can't spend more than you ear without having a deficit. It's the same thing.

It seems they like Iran is trying much harder to get nukes now during the Obama admin versus the Bush admin

No it doesn't.

mostly because the Bush admin was much tougher on Iran with sanctions and what-not.

Nonsense. Iran was never afraid of the sanctions. They aren't really interested in nukes, the whole thing is an effort to win political points on the home front. Sanctions mean they can show themselves off as victims.

Common sense - terrorism is on the rise.

Source for that?

Sources against?

You fail. QED.

Short term Russia is a bigger risk towards peace. They are behaving like international bullies. And if you, like banker, mean economically, that's based on some sort of weird idea that it's bad for the US that other countries get richer. It couldn't be more wrong.

How "couldn't [it] be more wrong" that China getting richer than the US is bad for the US?

Again, I will need to teach you some basic economics. I'll also note my astonishment that you claim to be for free trade, but not understand this.

It's called one-sided trade. China is exporting virtually everything, while not needing to import much.

What is "needed" is irrelevant. What is the fact is that China does import much. They in fact exported for 1.43 trillion dollars and imported for 1.1 trillion dollars. That is not "not importing much". And the richer China gets, the smaller the difference will be. One-sided trade is a socialist/protectionist myth.

China is benefiting, yes. The US is not benefiting.

So why are Americans buying Chinese products, if they aren't benefiting? This is basic free trade stuff: If their products aren't better value for money, why buy them? If they *are* well, then the country that imports is also benefiting.

China doesn't need to open up for imports.

Yes it does. If they refuse to import from other countries, those countries will refuse to import from China. Very simple. That's why China joined the WTO in 2001. They have opened up for imports, just as much as the US have. In fact, the US should open up more. Trade is *good* for you.

It has everything it needs within it's own borders.

Utterly irrelevant.

Companies do have to worry about turning a profit, countries don't. Countries can lead deficits and debts for virtually infinite amounts of time, whereas companies can not. Quite different.

Wrong. Wrong. And therefore Wrong.

The notion that "continuous, stable commodity trading" leads to decreased inflation is quite simply, ridiculous.

OK, can you please now write a paper that disproves 200 years of economical research and get that posted in a respectable economics journal? Because you are disagreeing with every single economist in the history of post-industrial revolution society. And we who actually know what we are talking about need a little bit more than just your assertions to believe you.

That's what I've been saying...

No it isn't. You are saying the exact opposite. You are saying that the trade is bad for the US and good for China. There can be only one conclusion of that: Protectionism.

The solution is to export more, while importing less

How are you gonna force other countries to buy American? Invade them? :-)

If you consider losing by hundreds of billions of dollars as winning, then be my guest.

The US does not lose on trade. It, like all other countries, wins on trade. This is no different that when you trade. Do you buy your sunglasses or make them from scratch? Right. Why? because it's cheaper for you to buy sunglasses than to go out and find sand and build yourself a little oven you can make glass in, and then mine some metal to make the frame once you've succeeded in making glass, and then making sunglasses out of all this. It's cheaper just to buy them. You *win* from trade. And so does the guy who made the glasses. Both wins! That's the point of trade. All free trade means everybody involved wins!
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2009 11:28:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 9:43:09 PM, banker wrote:
At 10/8/2009 1:22:54 PM, Nags wrote:
Absolutely false. So you believe its false but you still blame bush on false things... I love your spelling

Also I assume you have not been in bufflo ny or detroit mi a long time those factories are closed

Yeah, because "bufflo" and Detroit where the ONLY places who had a factory in ALL OF USA! It's a well known fact that the rest of US is covered in mud and pig farms. Oh yes.

After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china

He never did any such thing.
Well depands what "did" means...

No it doesn't.

I believe your explenation will be with awesome spelling!

You bet it will!

Interesting how feds created nafta

You fail again.

I assume all the hard industrial (menial) workers was only important for china economy not for our..!

Oh noes! Industry, yes, that's the think, we need a country full of uneducated menial workers who can't spell and eat "bufflo wings". That's after all, is what Luxembourg, Switzerland and Hong Kong got so rich. Because of their amazing industry and they massive amount of uneducated morons who can't spell or use punctuation!

Source for that?
again come to nyc subway and get in tuch with reality or go to any newspaper reporting on afghanistan

Learn how to quote correctly. The only way you can see what you wrote now is by the complete lack of spelling and punctuation.

Ah "come to nyc subway". Well that was convincing. Because I've never been in New York, but now I understand that in the NY subway there are bomb attacks everywhere!
So prove me wrong, then.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2009 2:17:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/8/2009 11:28:39 PM, regebro wrote:
At 10/8/2009 9:43:09 PM, banker wrote:
At 10/8/2009 1:22:54 PM, Nags wrote:
Absolutely false. So you believe its false but you still blame bush on false things... I love your spelling

Also I assume you have not been in bufflo ny or detroit mi a long time those factories are closed

Yeah, because "bufflo" and Detroit where the ONLY places who had a factory in ALL OF USA! It's a well known fact that the rest of US is covered in mud and pig farms. Oh yes.

True we have empty factories everywhere not only in detroit even in ny city 13 million squ feet industrial (menial) space( that used to employ uneducated menial workers you believe are not deserving to get a job) into housing lofts :
After clinton convinced us to hand over our industrial economy to china

He never did any such thing.
Well depands what "did" means...

No it doesn't.

Sorry my mistake
Let me fix it
" After clinton convinced us to hand over our menial economy to china"
I believe your explenation will be with awesome spelling!

You bet it will!
so you- unlike menial workers- should be allowed to have a job..!
Interesting how feds created nafta

You fail again.
since your the good speller no need to explain why you believe so
I assume all the hard industrial (menial) workers was only important for china economy not for our..!

Oh noes! Industry, yes, that's the think, we need a country full of uneducated menial workers who can't spell and eat "bufflo wings". That's after all, is what Luxembourg, Switzerland and Hong Kong got so rich. Because of their amazing industry and they massive amount of uneducated morons who can't spell or use punctuation!

Well the interesting thing, about the hero nations you outlined is, that they are not only as great, due to their economy, its also about their history..
They know how to handle the menial unaducated unusefull race which is also heroic to those with your view..

Give us a way you believe we should solve the issue of the menial workers in our nation should we build camps ..! After all they can't spall..
Source for that?

again come to nyc subway and get in tuch with reality or go to any newspaper reporting on afghanistan

Learn how to quote correctly. The only way you can see what you wrote now is by the complete lack of spelling and punctuation.

Ah "come to nyc subway". Well that was convincing. Because I've never been in New York, but now I understand that in the NY subway there are bomb attacks everywhere!

Lots of cops with pointed guns all over
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable