If Obama is not corrupt, can you explain for one of many things, his complete lack of action against the individuals and institutions which caused the GFC? In many other countries they would have been given the death penalty.
President Obama is not corrupt. Obama, like the rest of us, are a part of a faulty system on many levels. Fiat currencies, perpetual debt, too much credit (and not enough revenue to pay for it) are just some of the problems that spring to mind. There are a lot more.
Where does one start with the GFC? The GFC may well have started way before 2008 and there are a multiple of
worldwide factors that one must take into account. Debatable, but I personally don't think sub-prime in the US
caused the GFC. Europe and other parts of the world were over-leveraged too. Obama had nothing to do with the problems in Europe, for example, that were clearly brewing even 7 years ago, and maybe even before this period. And Obama had nothing to do with the problems in the US.
White collar crime is, at large, not seen as important by most people in the world, as blue collar crime. This is a world wide phenomenon and it doesn't help if those that probably could do something about this type of stealthy, but serious crime, like your law enforcement agencies, are too preoccupied (through no fault of their own) to focus on other types of crime. The system those law enforcement agencies work in is
designed, subtly and over a period of time, to channel their energies, expertise etc in other directions.
And another point, that is becoming obvious in the UK, law enforcement agencies are under resourced in general. Cutbacks or proposed cutbacks certainly don't help.
Congress is a different problem altogether. I don't think congress should have as much power as they do, personally. They should perhaps spend endless amounts of time debating what the next postal stamp should look like, for example. But congress, and there are other organizations, like some media outlets, should not have such an important gatekeeper role.
I'm just speeding through your posts and....are you actually implying that the US has any interest whatsoever in protecting the world from anything?
Most definitely, the US (The President, defense services of all kinds etc) does have a real interest in protecting the world from all kinds of serious harm. Here's a question for you; let's say the US wasn't in control of geopolitics around the world or didn't oversee the world the way it does, which country would look after us in the West and East? There is no other country that has the expertise, will and resources to oversee geopolitical events (current and future ones).
I personally see the GFC as a time for many countries around the world to support the US and its allies' efforts to protect us from potential major global conflicts in the future. WWI and WWII were
inevitable because (amongst many technical and historical reasons) you didn't have a global superpower to oversee all parts of the world and focus in on the troubled parts; this is what the US does. And not just some parts like a potential next superpower (ie. China) might focus on.
If China, for example, overtook the US's geopolitical role, China might do this fragmentedly, but there would be some serious gaps in perhaps some precarious parts of the world. There may not be a country with the will, resources etc, like the US, to take the necessary actions if (in the future) serous conflicts were brewing in some parts of the world. Without the US and its allies in control (and of course it's very difficult at times), you might have many countries in different parts of the world, at different times, go for the top dog position.
Are you implying that US politicians (the very same ones who get millions of dollars of corrupt money from the defense contractors they give funding to, not to mention every other lobby group that comes knocking) are somehow moral and just?
I just don't understand where you are getting these assumptions from. Mate, all but maybe half a dozen US congressmen (and women) deserve the death penalty.
Congressmen don't deserve the death penalty! I don't know why you would suggest this! I don't have a very good opinion of congress and other organizations, like shadow banking cartels. Not talking about the local bank in town.
Like I mentioned before, I think it would be a good idea to give congress a special role of overseeing the next type of stamp that will hit the post office. As for deciding on really important issues. I think the people in general can do this without needing to be parented by their local constituents.
But I also believe (and I am not that patriotic myself, I admit) that the military and of course the President (and his team) should have a greater influence in matters internal and abroad, without being sidetracked by gatekeepers like congress and media outlets (who seem to be serving other masters).
One of the reasons why I know we will need defense agencies of all kinds to protect us, is because of the potential fragmented protective framework and the possible dangers that may arise, if we didn't have the US, for example, to oversee geopolitics on a global (and not a fragmented) scale.
In other words, ask yourself why there was never a WWIII, and the answer has to be because the US and its allies (and there are plenty) kept on preventing this from ever happening. Now ask yourself what a world without global oversight would look like.
Now I probably wouldn't last three days in a military training camp, for example, and I'd probably get beaten up because I'm probably too annoying. But I'm sure glad that I can live a relatively comfortable life not worrying about serous global threats every ten minutes; I'm thinking of Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men here and what he said to Tom Cruise while they were having lunch outdoors. Only Nicholson could pull that off like that!