I’m confused by the link which lionelorford produced. In it it is stated:
"Capitalism is a monetary system in which all money is created as interest bearing bank debt,
through a system known as Fractional Reserve Banking."
But that sounds like the definition of a debt-based money system, not capitalism. Not that Google is the end all of true definitions but it is a voice:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+capitalism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
By a majority of these definitions, capitalism can exist independently of fractional reserve banking.
I do not claim to be an expert in fractional reserve banking, capitalism, socialism, or any other "ism" for that matter, but it didn’t add up for me. I’m open to clarification.
Also, I found this statement:
"…However, it is crucial to have an inspirational leader to rally the people and generate
a sense of common purpose; and indeed, the people often choose inspirational leaders in
troubled times. The election of Barack Obama is a highly pertinent example of this.
The importance of his election, both for America and the rest of the world, can hardly be
overstated. He has restored to America the hope that their democracy can be made to work.
He has restored hope to the international community that America will again constructively
engage with the world to meet the monumental challenges that we face, after the devastating
antipathy towards international cooperation of the Bush Administration."
Ordinarily, in everyday conversation, I don’t correct people on this, but this document is written in a way that is, for the most part, polished and poignant, and it seemed to drop the ball in regards to the fact that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Again, ordinarily this isn’t worth mentioning, but at times this paper gets so granular and is so painstakenly specific, that it was strange when this discipline was given up, seemingly conveniently, to make later connections which would be more difficult, though not impossible, to make without the use of the word "democracy".
Besides that, I think that your use of the word "hope" would be better exchanged for the word "optimism."
For many, hope never leaves. For if it had, as is the premise of this statement, Obama would not have been elected. For Obama to be elected, hope would have had to already exist to mobilize one’s self. Therefore, I believe the election of Obama did not restore hope.
I believe you have, in fact, managed to overstate it.
An argument could more easily be made that it restored optimism, for even in hard times, real hope endures.
I can only speak for myself, but…
…Hope is what gives us the ability to make a difference in the lives of those around us, sometimes more so than any president. Hope is what speaks to us to do what is right. Hope is what helps us keep a watchful eye on those who are elected, and the strength to be diligent in this regard. Hope is what gives us the understanding that the ship can still be steered by the people, no matter who the president is. Hope is simultaneously our best reason against complacency, and our true cause for patience.
Hope is why we base our optimism on meaningful action, not on emotion.
True hope exists independently of our elected officials.
Thanks for posting the document. I have not finished reading it, but plan to.