REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Did Bush lie? It doesn't matter any more.

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 08:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7495
PAGE 1 of 3

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


That's right. It's no longer a matter of any significance. The fanatics on both sides are never going to change their minds, and us folk in the middle are so tired of seeing that poor dead horse get beat that we don't care much anymore. Maybe somewhere down the road there'll be an impeachment or and exoneration, and we'll read about it in the paper.

So you pro and anti guys go ahead and prepare for the crucifiction, or canonization, or whatever, and the rest of us will worry about stuff that can actually be resolved.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:03 PM

ARODIN


He's a politician. Of course he lied.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:17 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Arodin:
He's a politician. Of course he lied.



But it doesn't matter.

+1 for the anti side.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:41 PM

RADHIL


Except that we have quite a few soldiers still being shot at. I'm sure they'd take issue with your apathy and attitude that situations should just resolve themselves, or that what's going on is "no longer a matter of any significance".

Pardon me, but I'll continue to care. And I'll continue to talk (or argue) with others that do.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I quite frankly don't care if they lie to me about getting a blow job, but when it comes to those trivial issues of war and terrorism then I mind very much!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:05 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Radhil:
Except that we have quite a few soldiers still being shot at. I'm sure they'd take issue with your apathy and attitude that situations should just resolve themselves, or that what's going on is "no longer a matter of any significance".

Pardon me, but I'll continue to care. And I'll continue to talk (or argue) with others that do.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction



I'm concerned with our soldiers being shot at. I'm concerned with what's going to happen to Iraq in the next few years. Please explain to me how determining whether Bush lied or not is going to change one iota of what is going on in Iraq today.

As far as I can tell, all the "Bush Lied", or "There really were WMD", or "It's all about the oil", or "Saddam supported Terror" is just an excuse for folks to keep rehashing the same old comfortable arguments rather than actually trying to figure out solutions for the things that are happening right now.

I would suspect the neither the Marine getting ready to attack Najaf nor the Sadr militiaman hiding in the Valley of Peace cemetery have Bush's honesty or lack thereof foremost on their minds right now. I am also more concerned about how we'll stop them killing each other than with something that may have happened a year ago.

As a matter of fact, I consider you the apathetic one. You'd rather live in the past and stay in that comfortable globe of "Bush Lied" self-righteousness than discuss something that actually means anything.

edit: +2 anti

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:07 PM

CREVANREAVER


Now if everyone would throw their own personal ideologies away for a second and just look at the facts they would see the honest truth. Bush didn't lie, he was mislead. He had the United Nations, Bill Clinton, Vladimir Putin, George Tenet's CIA, and even the odd behavior of Saddam Hussein telling him that there were WMDs. After so much pressure, he had to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Don't get me wrong. I think going into Iraq, at least the way we did, was a big mistake and I'm pissed off at Bush. But not for lying, instead for quite frankly being gullible.

John Kerry has recently said he still would have voted to go to war with Iraq in October of 2002 even if he knew everything he knows now. That in itself shows Kerry's either a panderer or even more gullible than Bush.

By the way, Al Qaeda probable salivates at the idea of a Nader presidency. He's the worst of three evils.

Click on the website below for a candidate with the right answers!

http://www.badnarik.org/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:27 PM

RADHIL


Quote:

As a matter of fact, I consider you the apathetic one. You'd rather live in the past and stay in that comfortable globe of "Bush Lied" self-righteousness than discuss something that actually means anything.


Now - ignoring the insult, 'cause we can trade 'em all day - that's a far better and far more interesting statement than the one you opened with. And I'd agree, it's a topic well worthy of discussion.

The reason the "Bush Lied" and every other muckraking topic gets bandied about so often and the reason people are stuck on it is because the only things (generally speaking) us little folk can directly do is shake up the administration. Toss a bowling ball into the election, and hope the new pinheads do better. The ultimate point of all the bashing from one side or another is realy just that.

I'm a practical guy. I'd prefer some other discussion with less straw men and less fanatics. It's politics that forces me to be political. Ain't irony grand....

To be honest, I don't think I've seen a serious discussion of how to fix our current problems. Either on fan board or politico comments or even from the supposedly serious campaigns. That's the only reason I haven't participated in one yet.

But if you'd like to lead, feel free. I'll follow. What're your ideas? Let's hash 'em out.

(am I still apathetic now? )

EDIT - Anti minus one.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yeah, like Radhill said about the pinheads.

It's not JUST a case of looking back, it's also a case of trying to prevent the same thing from happening again... like in Iran maybe.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:34 PM

HKCAVALIER


I think the secret to why you don't see any reasonable discussion of what to do about Iraq is that most people at bottom know perfectly well that there is no workable solution. Going in there solved one problem and created 300 more. And really, I don't think America went to war in Iraq to solve anything. We certainly didn't go to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a bad man. That rationale popped up months after Iraq was well in our crosshairs. That's what you call "a pretext." He'd been a bad man for years and years and years. We (not Bush--I frankly don't know why he went to war, but we, the people of America) went to war in Iraq because we lost 3000 people in one morning and Afghanistan didn't satisfy our revenge. It's pretty simple.

The Iraqi people are screwed, maybe a little less screwed at the moment than they were a year ago, but screwed nonetheless. And things will be getting much worse before they get better. Particularly if Bush wins the election and we destroy another country or two in the area.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:45 PM

RADHIL


Quote:

The Iraqi people are screwed, maybe a little less screwed at the moment than they were a year ago, but screwed nonetheless. And things will be getting much worse before they get better. Particularly if Bush wins the election and we destroy another country or two in the area.


Perhaps true. But it's a majorly defeatist attitude to take. We shouldn't be the country that just loses and takes it. Even the war hawks should be on-board with that.

If we're gonna be in there until it's reached relative stability - relative to say everyplace else with bombs in the region - it's something worth debating uselessly about it. Kerry's already said blatantly that we're staying the course, so it's not like our options include cut'n'run. So let's hit it. Even if we're all doomed.

Use imagination if necessary, don't just assume we have crappy people in charge, or that Dubya will arrest ya. Assume you're in charge. Assume you can issue any order you like, disband or reband or contraband at will. Figure out ramifications, positive and negative, from all parties involved.

C'mon. Firefly's an intelligent show. We're supposed to be an intelligent fanbase. Let's see how really intelligent we are. We'll package it and ship it off as the "Serenity Think Tank Plan for Success in a Doomed Iraq" and see if it gets news coverage before someone thinks twice. We can discuss lesbianism in the 25th century and the morals of the Alliance, we can sure as hell discuss this and produce something thoughtful.

Besides, I wanna prove the Geezer wrong.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


hahaha!!!

I can give ANY orders??? I like them ground rules. Where's the wine? It always helps brainstorming!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 1:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Radhil:

Now - ignoring the insult, 'cause we can trade 'em all day - that's a far better and far more interesting statement than the one you opened with. And I'd agree, it's a topic well worthy of discussion.


I'm a practical guy. I'd prefer some other discussion with less straw men and less fanatics. It's politics that forces me to be political. Ain't irony grand....

To be honest, I don't think I've seen a serious discussion of how to fix our current problems. Either on fan board or politico comments or even from the supposedly serious campaigns. That's the only reason I haven't participated in one yet.

But if you'd like to lead, feel free. I'll follow. What're your ideas? Let's hash 'em out.

(am I still apathetic now? )

EDIT - Anti minus one.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction



Great! Now we've had the ritual exchange of insults and can get down to some interesting discussion. Must observe the rules.

I was gonna start with how we should deal with Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi militia, but checking the news this morning it appears that a decision has already been made to take him down.

The strategy might be interesting to talk about. US forces are going to drive the militia back to their bases at various mosques and shrines in Najaf and Kufa, and then hold them and let the Iraqi National Guard take it from there, thus limiting non-Iraqi presence on holy ground. Apparently any order to move against the mosques will come directly from Allawi.

Think it'll work?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:48 AM

SGTGUMP


Quote:

Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
Now if everyone would throw their own personal ideologies away for a second and just look at the facts they would see the honest truth. Bush didn't lie, he was mislead. He had the United Nations, Bill Clinton, Vladimir Putin, George Tenet's CIA, and even the odd behavior of Saddam Hussein telling him that there were WMDs. After so much pressure, he had to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Don't get me wrong. I think going into Iraq, at least the way we did, was a big mistake and I'm pissed off at Bush. But not for lying, instead for quite frankly being gullible.

John Kerry has recently said he still would have voted to go to war with Iraq in October of 2002 even if he knew everything he knows now. That in itself shows Kerry's either a panderer or even more gullible than Bush.

By the way, Al Qaeda probable salivates at the idea of a Nader presidency. He's the worst of three evils.

Click on the website below for a candidate with the right answers!

http://www.badnarik.org



I'll be pulling the Libertarian lever again this year. I really like their 'stop meddling in other people's affairs' approach to the world.

"Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic, it's all going down man." - Tyler

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 3:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I was going to start with defining what we mean by "successful conclusion". Is "Nuke 'em all" a success?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


That wasn't as snide as it sounded. Iraq is the Rorschach test of our politics. If the goal was to ensure ourselves that Iraq had no WMD (as Bush asserted) then we've already succeeded. If the goal was to eliminate Saddam- well, we've succeeded at that too, and any withdrawal that doesn't lead to immediate collapse is a win.

However, some people want to install democracy in Iraq. The first democratic election is our signal of success. Then there are the flavors of democracy- is it secular? Does it protect human right in general and women's rights specifically?

Others want to install 100% free market capitalism. Still others want to see Iraq "prosperous" without necessarily being ideologically pure about how to get there.

Some people want to control Iraq's oil so that "we" can control OPEC. Others (on this board) want to remake to entire Middle East, with Iran next in their sights, so that Israel is safe from attack.
Some people want permanent American bases there to replace the Saudi bases that we are leaving. Others would be happy with creating a nation that is a USA ally, without being too picky about the form of government.

Unless we collectively and individually define our goals, then our ideas will be subject to "mission creep".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Unless we collectively and individually define our goals, then our ideas will be subject to "mission creep".



Good point. My personal ideal would be to leave Iraq sort of like we left Japan after the occupation following WWII. A stable, somewhat democratic government that can work within the social structures of the people. I think we have a moral obligation to do this, and believe that in general democracies work better than other systems of government.

I realize there are differences in post-war Japan and post-war Iraq, the level of insurgency for instance, but the goal remains the same.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 5:10 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Signym:

Some people want to control Iraq's oil so that "we" can control OPEC.



Who said "We" want to control OPEC? I haven't read any posts that state that. Personally I'm all for an alternative source of energy so we can stop relying on OPEC at all.

Quote:

Others (on this board) want to remake to entire Middle East, with Iran next in their sights, so that Israel is safe from attack.


Thats such a jaded pro-arab anti Israeli comment. This has nothing to do with specifically protecting Israel. This has to do with elimianting Extremist Islamafascists and the governments that create and house them. Iran is a prime sponsor of Islamafascism. Saudi Arabia and its "Royalty" as well as it's lazy youth (foreigners have jobs there because the youth feel the jobs are beneath them) will also eventually mutate or be overthrown.

My prediction: Democracy will eventually come to all nations in the world. As will capitalism.

Quote:

Some people want permanent American bases there to replace the Saudi bases that we are leaving.


Is anything ever permanent?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 6:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes but Saddam was a SECULAR tyrant, which is why we used him against Iran. So obviously your goals extend beyond "fundamentalist" Islamic dictators to include.... who???

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 6:43 AM

RADHIL


Replying to all here, pick and choose your poisons as you like.

Goals: I'd go mostly with what Geezer said, and Japan is probably the best example of what we've done before. Mostly democratic state in place - you could go farther than that, but let's leave the social and economic engineering to be worked out by said democratic state (which might be a reversal goal - it could be argued we're already doing such engineering *sigh*). Preferably a lenient and secular democracy, but if we end up with a sharia(sp?) fundamentalist gov't, so long as they didn't "enforce" elections with local thugs and have females stoned for face exposure I think I'd take it. Relative security, on a par with other MidEast states in the area, who have the occasional car bomb or natural disaster but generally plod on with uninterrupted lives. My own personal desire for a goal would also be to leave with a decent morale among the Iraqis. Strategically, it's the only way we can make sure the Qaeda goons will move in and set up recruiting stations as soon as we leave. Morally, it's just the right thing to do after the hell we put them through. The rest of you can aim as you like - this'll be what I'm trying for. Higher than sky to aim, but hell, we're crazy anyway.

ConnonFlynn: Don't get distracted. Previous intentions irrelevent. Current intentions irrelevent. Eyes toward the future. Results, not blame.

Al-Sadr: Hell. With Sistani, the only respected Shiite on both sides, now out of the picture, I'm honestly not sure what to do with the guy. Before they started bombing Najaf, I would've made an offer for the merging of his Brigade with the Iraqi army. But I think they tried that tack anyway. If we invade or shell the mosques, we're fucked, that's certain. I don't think the Iraqi Guard yet has the manpower and certainly not the morale, if their previous desertions are any indication, to handle it, so we'd probably have to force the issue. Sadr may be using them and committing blasphemy himself by using them as bases, Allawi might order us in, but no Shiite is gonna give a good damn about any of those things. It'd tip the populace of Iran into wanting open war, and we'd turn what might be a handful of foreign invaders and bombers here and there into a veritable flood. The only thing I can come up with is to take out Sadr, hard and fast, best surgical hit we can come up with even if it means invading one site, and then back off the army bulk so Najaf can cool down and the Brigade can start to disperse without their leader. Maybe pushing in on the mosques will get us close enough to pin his location for such a thing, and we won't have to invade the mosques in full. I'm not smart enough to know if that effect would work too slow or work perfectly, but it's the best course I can see. Sadr won't surrender, and while he's preaching his fire, neither will the Brigade. The Shiites would still be pissed, but the clerics would be distracted while they jockey for position (none of them are as well recognized as Sadr or Sistani, I think), and with a little luck, it might all cool down to a dull simmer before any one of them starts rallying jihad again.

One More Thing: One crazy plan I thunk up is to gut the current government. Iraqis think they're American puppets as it is, and they're probably not wrong. Keep the framework, but set loose the people. Announce elections immediately, security be damned - we held elections in the middle of our Civil War, we can do it here - put it on a three month fast track timetable. Make sure the election boards are staffed locally and quickly and publicly, no Halliburton contracting - corruption would be a problem, but at least it'd be Iraqi corruption, and can be dealt with by those involved. It'd kill a lot of bad attitude the people currently have, I think. Thoughts on this?

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 9:25 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by Radhil:
Goals: I'd go mostly with what Geezer said, and Japan is probably the best example of what we've done before. Mostly democratic state in place - you could go farther than that, but let's leave the social and economic engineering to be worked out by said democratic state (which might be a reversal goal - it could be argued we're already doing such engineering *sigh*). Preferably a lenient and secular democracy, but if we end up with a sharia(sp?) fundamentalist gov't, so long as they didn't "enforce" elections with local thugs and have females stoned for face exposure I think I'd take it. Relative security, on a par with other MidEast states in the area, who have the occasional car bomb or natural disaster but generally plod on with uninterrupted lives.



In my opinion a Sharia government would be utter disaster. Islamafascism is bred from the distortion of Sharia mixed with government. Thats one of the issues breeding extremism in Saudi Arabia. Most college grads in SA have degrees in Islam making them unqualified for legitimate technical jobs or any other jobs other then religion. A secular government with perhaps UN oversight until it is stable would be the best fit.

Quote:

My own personal desire for a goal would also be to leave with a decent morale among the Iraqis. Strategically, it's the only way we can make sure the Qaeda goons will move in and set up recruiting stations as soon as we leave.


Hopefully with proper and "accurate intelligence" this time we can prevent Al Qaeda from getting a solid foothold anywhere. My hope is that a true (and honest) taste of capitalism and freedom will convince the Arabic world that they don't need to rely on religion to feed them.

Quote:

Morally, it's just the right thing to do after the hell we put them through. The rest of you can aim as you like - this'll be what I'm trying for. Higher than sky to aim, but hell, we're crazy anyway.


Unfortunately these people haven't known peace or security for 30+ years (except maybe the ruling party) What we've put them through is just a smidge of what they've already known. I have a couple of Iranian and Iraqi friends. All of which were happy to see us invade. Primarily because they have known what it was like to live under Saddam and the Ayatollah. My Iranian friend Bobak's father was a member of the youth revolution in Iran. He was forced to flee on threat of death from the Ayatollah's thugs. 2 of his (Bobak's father) brothers were dragged from their beds in the middle of the night and never seen again.

Quote:

Al-Sadr: Hell. With Sistani, the only respected Shiite on both sides, now out of the picture, I'm honestly not sure what to do with the guy. Before they started bombing Najaf, I would've made an offer for the merging of his Brigade with the Iraqi army. But I think they tried that tack anyway. If we invade or shell the mosques, we're fucked, that's certain. I don't think the Iraqi Guard yet has the manpower and certainly not the morale, if their previous desertions are any indication, to handle it, so we'd probably have to force the issue. Sadr may be using them and committing blasphemy himself by using them as bases, Allawi might order us in, but no Shiite is gonna give a good damn about any of those things. It'd tip the populace of Iran into wanting open war, and we'd turn what might be a handful of foreign invaders and bombers here and there into a veritable flood. The only thing I can come up with is to take out Sadr, hard and fast, best surgical hit we can come up with even if it means invading one site, and then back off the army bulk so Najaf can cool down and the Brigade can start to disperse without their leader. Maybe pushing in on the mosques will get us close enough to pin his location for such a thing, and we won't have to invade the mosques in full. I'm not smart enough to know if that effect would work too slow or work perfectly, but it's the best course I can see. Sadr won't surrender, and while he's preaching his fire, neither will the Brigade. The Shiites would still be pissed, but the clerics would be distracted while they jockey for position (none of them are as well recognized as Sadr or Sistani, I think), and with a little luck, it might all cool down to a dull simmer before any one of them starts rallying jihad again.


Yeah I agree. We need to nail Al Sadr his supporters to the wall as fast as possible with as little damage to holy sites as possible. Right now these thugs are unafraid of us because we have been too namby pamby. Diplomacy with extremists is next to impossible. The Arabic media is going to put a negative spin on any action over there, regardless of whether or not Al Sadr desecrated the holy sites by attacking from them and using them as weapons storage.

Quote:

One More Thing: One crazy plan I thunk up is to gut the current government. Iraqis think they're American puppets as it is, and they're probably not wrong. Keep the framework, but set loose the people. Announce elections immediately, security be damned - we held elections in the middle of our Civil War, we can do it here - put it on a three month fast track timetable. Make sure the election boards are staffed locally and quickly and publicly, no Halliburton contracting - corruption would be a problem, but at least it'd be Iraqi corruption, and can be dealt with by those involved. It'd kill a lot of bad attitude the people currently have, I think. Thoughts on this?

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction



Great Idea if it could be implemented. Unfortunately until we take out the thugs and foreign militants (who don't want a free and democratic Iraq), open elections will be virtually impossible. IMHO quicker free elections is going to be key. Hopefully we aren't going to have to wait 5 years before the elections truly take place.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 12, 2004 9:39 AM

CONNORFLYNN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes but Saddam was a SECULAR tyrant, which is why we used him against Iran. So obviously your goals extend beyond "fundamentalist" Islamic dictators to include.... who???



There are many young people in Iran and Iraq who hunger for a legitimate secular democracy. There are many in the US who would return to both countries if that type of government existed there. I'm confident that if allowed, once stability is secured, the Arabic peoples would elect capable Non-tyrannical leaders who want to bring them into the modern day.

A great book is "Reading Lolita in Tehran: A memoir in books" by Azar Nafisi.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081297106X/103-0991860-2
647825?v=glance

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 13, 2004 12:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So the next country in your sights is Iran. But obviously there are many other tyrannies in the Mideast and Asia: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Uzbekistan, Pakistan ec. Which leaderships would you ideally like to change, and why?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Uh... this wasn't meant to be a trick question. But two years ago, very few people thought about ending the regime in Iraq, and two months ago few people were talking about Iran. I'm just trying to get a perspective on what you think is the ideal endpoint of our intervention, and then what you think is the achievable endpoint.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 16, 2004 4:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


No proactive plans for Iraq, Iran or the Mideast?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 5:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

My hope is that a true (and honest) taste of capitalism and freedom will convince the Arabic world that they don't need to rely on religion to feed them.


Just wanted to point out some erroneous equations.
It is NOT true that capitalism = democracy = independence = secularism = 'freedom' .

capitalism - an economy of government in service to business (as opposed to one of business in service to government, which is socialism)
democracy - a meaningful vote
independence - operating without outside influence
secularism - social governance not based on religion
freedom - at times meant as one of, or any combination of, the above

Venezuela is a prime example. It is possible for people to meaningfully vote for a socialist economy.
It is also possible for people to meaningfully vote for a religious government. (As my Pakistani friend - a PhD biophysicist - said 'the way things are here, I want to go home and put on the veil.')

Ideally, Iraq would be 'free' to chose its course independently (without Bremer's rules and US decrees) and democratically, even if it meant they voted for a socialist economy and religious law.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 8:00 PM

HKCAVALIER


Rue, I don't think I've read a single post of yours that didn't make me glad in some way. Relieved. We get so inundated with these false dichotomies and bizarre equations. Thanks for a little clarity.

What is the deal with people having to equate democracy with capitalism anyway? Does capitalism promote egalitarianism? Civic mindedness? Pluralism? Not that I've seen. Lately the only "taste" I get is the old familiar bitter one of Darwinian, zero sum, plutocratic f*ck-your-neighborism.

I heard somebody this week say that they were afraid of John Kerry because they didn't want to live in a socialist country. John Kerry, married to one of the richest heiresses in U.S. history is gonna turn the country socialist...yep.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hi HK,

Thanks for the reply. Sometimes it seems like I'm banging my head on a wall, so I do enjoy a little appreciation from time to time.

I've been puzzling over that democracy = capitalism equation for a while - where did it come from, when did it get to be official US policy etc. I haven't tracked it down yet. I think it may have got formalized during the cold war, but US government support for US businesses - including using US troops to strong-arm foreign governments with gun-boats and marines, and to shoot down pro-union demonstrators in the US, goes back much further.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 19, 2004 7:26 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


PS. I've been busy and not following the board very closely, so if I've missed your postings ignore the rest. But - where have you been? I depend on you, SignyM and some others for posts to enlighten, brighten, even criticize ....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 19, 2004 10:39 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

That's right. It's no longer a matter of any significance.


what does that say about us as a nation if it doesn't matter

its really sad..because it doesn't seem to matter..and I suppose the next lie won't matter either so where does that leave us....will we keep settleing until their is nothing left to settle

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 12:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm concerned with our soldiers being shot at. I'm concerned with what's going to happen to Iraq in the next few years. Please explain to me how determining whether Bush lied or not is going to change one iota of what is going on in Iraq today.


It's an emotional/ ideological response to cut short a painful discussion, not a logical one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 2:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Just wanted to point out some erroneous equations.
It is NOT true that capitalism = democracy = independence = secularism = 'freedom' .

capitalism - an economy of government in service to business (as opposed to one of business in service to government, which is socialism)



Huh? My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate defines capitalism as: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Does the definition change in later editions?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 2:56 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Huh? My Webster's Ninth New Collegiate defines capitalism as: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Does the definition change in later editions?



Come on, Geezer, you're just being a smart-ass. Of course Rue's definition isn't in the dictionary! Rue's definition is what we call "insight." (Why don't you look that up?)

Besides which, Rue's point (i.e: that part of Rue's argument that you'd be responding to if you had any respect for the discussion or Rue) was that capitalism and democracy are not the same thing--a point which is still borne out by Webster.

So why don't you come back to the grown-up table and talk about what special affinity democracy has for capitalism, if any?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 3:12 AM

SPACEMONKEY


"just an excuse for folks to keep rehashing the same old comfortable arguments rather than actually trying to figure out solutions for the things that are happening right now. "

Here's an idea. Give Bush the boot for starters!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 3:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
...So why don't you come back to the grown-up table and talk about what special affinity democracy has for capitalism, if any?




(Ahh. Present the fly just right and they'll always rise to it)

Well, since you ask so nicely.

Capitalism, by Webster's definition, tends to exist in countries where it is allowed to function with a lesser level of state control. Such a country is usually either a Democratic Republic, or a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy.

Checking the UN Human Development Index, http://hdr.undp.org/ all the top countries are democracies of one sort or the other, http://www.wordiq.com/definition/List_of_countries_by_system_of_govern
ment
and allow capitalism to work relatively unemcumbered in the market sector, even if they are more socialist in the public services sector (health care, pensions, etc.) I'd take this as a pretty convincing argument that capitalism and democracy tend to work well together.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 9:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


However, if you look into the actual workings of capitalist countries, you'll see that the only aspect where reality and definition coincide is the part about private ownership of the means of production.

As such, I would argue that there are really no capitalist countries.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 12:16 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
However, if you look into the actual workings of capitalist countries, you'll see that the only aspect where reality and definition coincide is the part about private ownership of the means of production.

As such, I would argue that there are really no capitalist countries.



If you're talking about a pure capitalist system, where there is absolutely no state interference with business, I have to agree. And to tell the truth, I'm just as glad that the FDA, USDA, SEC, OSHA, etc. are on the job.

There aren't pure examples of any economic or political system out there. The fact that people are individual and sometimes imperfect sees to that. It does seem, though, that countries that hew closer to the capitalist and democratic ideals generally provide a better standard of living and more freedom than those that don't.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 1:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Indeed, finding a "pure" system of any economic form is impossible. But my beef with the British, and then American version of capitalism is not so much that it's over-regulated but that politicians place too much favor towards business. In other words, it isn't an "level playing field" free market, but one that's slanted towards large businesses and specifically towards large coporations. And I'm not talking about subsidies (although that in itself is a problem) but the entire history and structure of of our policies.

What people don't remember is that Adam Smith envsioned a free market not just between consumer and producers but also between businesses and laborers. However, throughout the history of British and American industrialization, governments invariably intervened on behalf of business in the labor/ business market: writing laws favorable to corporations and unfavorable to worker associations; granting rights to corporations that other entities didn't enjoy; militarily enforcing cheap labor abroad; using army, police and private security agencies to bust heads and break up unions internally.

So while business consolidated nationally and then internationally, labor was forced to negotiate from individual and local levels. If our laws and interventions had not been so persistently pro-business, the current economic landscape would be different.

The other thing that people don't realize is that the whole concept of capitalism depends on competition. The LAST thing that business wants is competition, and large corporations have a myriad ways of stifling it- Microsoft is a prime example of how monopolism makes capitalism a moot point.

Just as an aside to Libertarians, this is where I find a fatal flaw in their arguments. They are so individualistic that they would rather lose power singly than protect themselves cooperatively.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 3:40 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Indeed, finding a "pure" system of any economic form is impossible. But my beef with the British, and then American version of capitalism is not so much that it's over-regulated but that politicians place too much favor towards business. In other words, it isn't an "level playing field" free market, but one that's slanted towards large businesses and specifically towards large coporations. And I'm not talking about subsidies (although that in itself is a problem) but the entire history and structure of of our policies.

What people don't remember is that Adam Smith envsioned a free market not just between consumer and producers but also between businesses and laborers. However, throughout the history of British and American industrialization, governments invariably intervened on behalf of business in the labor/ business market: writing laws favorable to corporations and unfavorable to worker associations; granting rights to corporations that other entities didn't enjoy; militarily enforcing cheap labor abroad; using army, police and private security agencies to bust heads and break up unions internally.

So while business consolidated nationally and then internationally, labor was forced to negotiate from individual and local levels. If our laws and interventions had not been so persistently pro-business, the current economic landscape would be different.

The other thing that people don't realize is that the whole concept of capitalism depends on competition. The LAST thing that business wants is competition, and large corporations have a myriad ways of stifling it- Microsoft is a prime example of how monopolism makes capitalism a moot point.

Just as an aside to Libertarians, this is where I find a fatal flaw in their arguments. They are so individualistic that they would rather lose power singly than protect themselves cooperatively.



Various US governments at various times have been on both sides of the labor-management issue. Britain in the '70s just about ran their auto industry into the ground by catering to labour at the expense of sound business decisions.

US government has been relatively anti-monopoly since the trust-busting of the early 20th century. There are any number of state and federal anti-trust cases going on against Microsoft as we speak.

Of course money talks, and business does get some breaks. No system is perfect. But I still have to maintain that overall the capitalist democracies provide a better standard of living and more freedom for more of their people than any other system. I haven't yet seen any evidence that refutes this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 4:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think it depends on "for whom and where". Also, you have to look at what might be a "sound business decision" in light of the overall world context.

We in the United States have a wonderful standard of living because we were protected from the ravages of WWII by oceans. At the end, we were literally the only industrialized nation left standing. (My husband, who grew up in post-war Hungary, likes to remind me that at the end of WWII there was only one bridge left and a few running trucks.) This gave us a significant edge to our technology, military, and currency. I don't think we can attribute that to capitalism per se but more to geographic fortune. I also happen to think that we are about to run out of our historical capital, but be that as it may....

Most of Africa, South and Central America, and Russia are capitalist basket cases. They have private/ coporate ownership-the hallmark of capitalism- but they are neither democratic nor properous. When capitalism was instituted in Russia, Poland, Argentina, Chile, and Nicaragua, the standard of living plummetted for most people while a few became fabulously wealthy. India, which is becoming "more" capitalist, is seeing a growing middle class- but also a growing POORER class.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 20, 2004 4:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Africa is the other face of capitalism.



Your standard of living is good because people are starving elsewhere. Many countries appear to do well because, having gotten an early start (the industrial revolution in Europe and the US), they've managed to exploit the rest of the world.

(The Adam Smith theory had a theoretical flaw in that it didn't model what would happen if a business got so large it dominated its environment.)

There are many models one could use to try to represent how capitalism actually functions. The one I favor is what I call the 'Ponzi scheme' model: since profit is the difference between costs (ultimately, wages) and selling price, the guy who makes the Mercedes can't afford to buy it, he buys a Hyundai. The guy who makes the Hyundai buys a motorcycle, the guy who makes the motorcycle buys a bicycle, the guy who makes the bicycle buys shoes, the guy who makes the shoes goes barefoot, and the guy not in the loop starves.

The US has managed (for now) to export its poverty - with exceptions.

If you look at barrios, slums, ghettos, and other concentrations of poverty in the US, you would see the functional equivalent of colonies just like the other capitalist, western nations used to have.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 21, 2004 5:41 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think it depends on "for whom and where". Also, you have to look at what might be a "sound business decision" in light of the overall world context.

We in the United States have a wonderful standard of living because we were protected from the ravages of WWII by oceans. At the end, we were literally the only industrialized nation left standing. (My husband, who grew up in post-war Hungary, likes to remind me that at the end of WWII there was only one bridge left and a few running trucks.) This gave us a significant edge to our technology, military, and currency. I don't think we can attribute that to capitalism per se but more to geographic fortune. I also happen to think that we are about to run out of our historical capital, but be that as it may....

Most of Africa, South and Central America, and Russia are capitalist basket cases. They have private/ coporate ownership-the hallmark of capitalism- but they are neither democratic nor properous. When capitalism was instituted in Russia, Poland, Argentina, Chile, and Nicaragua, the standard of living plummetted for most people while a few became fabulously wealthy. India, which is becoming "more" capitalist, is seeing a growing middle class- but also a growing POORER class.





But most of western europe, and Japan, were definitely ravaged by WWII. They rebuilt and they are right up there on the standard of living scale. South Korea was pretty well torn up by the Korean conflict, and it's doing well. After these wars the countries that had, or were given, democratic capitalist governments managed to recover and thrive while the authoritarian socialist countries didn't.

Africa, South and Central America, Russia and Eastern Europe pretty much confirm that capitalism needs to work hand in hand with democracy. People aren't going to invest the time and capital ncessary if they think the government will nationalize it or can't provide enough security to make it go.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 21, 2004 6:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Africa is the other face of capitalism.

Your standard of living is good because people are starving elsewhere. Many countries appear to do well because, having gotten an early start (the industrial revolution in Europe and the US), they've managed to exploit the rest of the world.


(The Adam Smith theory had a theoretical flaw in that it didn't model what would happen if a business got so large it dominated its environment.)

There are many models one could use to try to represent how capitalism actually functions. The one I favor is what I call the 'Ponzi scheme' model: since profit is the difference between costs (ultimately, wages) and selling price, the guy who makes the Mercedes can't afford to buy it, he buys a Hyundai. The guy who makes the Hyundai buys a motorcycle, the guy who makes the motorcycle buys a bicycle, the guy who makes the bicycle buys shoes, the guy who makes the shoes goes barefoot, and the guy not in the loop starves.

The US has managed (for now) to export its poverty - with exceptions.

If you look at barrios, slums, ghettos, and other concentrations of poverty in the US, you would see the functional equivalent of colonies just like the other capitalist, western nations used to have.




What I'm hearing from you and SignyM is either past history which can't be changed, or how bad everything is due to capitalist democracies, but no alternative proposals. When I look at your "Ponzi scheme" (another mis-definition, BTW) I see 7 out of 8 putting food on the table and improving their lives. And if there's that much money floating around, even the guy at the bottom could probably find a job providing services, if he wanted to. Without someone risking the capital to build the Mercedes factory, they'd all be on the dole.

And the reason that the family of the guy in Africa where they get the bauxite for the engine block is starving isn't because they don't pay enough for it, it's because his government nationalized the mine, set his wages below a living wage, and jail or kill him if he protests.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 21, 2004 5:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I see a major disconnect.

Quote:

What I'm hearing from you and SignyM is either past history which can't be changed, or how bad everything is due to capitalist democracies, but no alternative proposals.
Trust me, you wouldn't want to hear mine.


Quote:

When I look at your "Ponzi scheme" (another mis-definition, BTW)
How so?

Quote:

I see 7 out of 8 putting food on the table and improving their lives.
People have been putting food on the table and improving their lives long before capitalism, and will continue to do so should it disappear. The difference is, in other schemes (not every other scheme, but other ones) they keep 100% of the fruits of their efforts, not merely a portion.

Quote:

And if there's that much money floating around, even the guy at the bottom could probably find a job providing services, if he wanted to.
You truly subscribe to the trickle-down theory I take it. Check out the history of the Great Depression to prove that lots of money in the hands of a few people does not equate to jobs.

Quote:

Without someone risking the capital to build the Mercedes factory, they'd all be on the dole.
See above. It does not require capitalists, or capitalism, or government, for people to be able to get water, food and shelter.

Quote:

And the reason that the family of the guy in Africa where they get the bauxite for the engine block is starving isn't because they don't pay enough for it, it's because his government nationalized the mine, set his wages below a living wage, and jail or kill him if he protests.
I have not enough time right now to prove to you all the ways you are seriously wrong. But one thing you said IS true: government and business often act in concert to the detriment of nearly everyone.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 22, 2004 7:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Various US governments at various times have been on both sides of the labor-management issue. Britain in the '70s just about ran their auto industry into the ground by catering to labour at the expense of sound business decisions.


Yes and no. Laws provide the context of labor-owner negotiations. British monarchs granted charters for "Crown Corporations" but there was certainly no equivalent for "Crown Labor Associations" and that has been pretty much the approach ever since.

Laws form the basis for "corporations" which are synthetic persons (hence the term "incorporate"- to make a body). These laws create, recognize, and grant rights to these synthetic persons, and these synthetic persons are treated very favorably in tax, liability, and criminal law. (Two examples: It's generally a misdemeanor to steal less than X amount from a person, but ALWAYS a felony to steal from a corporation. There is no corporate equivalent to the death penalty.)

In addition to these laws, the history has been to either actively crush labor associations whenever they occur or to neglect their formation. This doesn't mean just in the distant past of the Haymarket Rebellion and the Wobblies but as recently as NAFTA and the GATT agreements, which (like laws governing corporations) make no provision for labor unions. To point to a few instances where government then nationalized a specific service or sector in the larger pro-coporate matrix just points to the exceptions rather than the rule.

Also, a "sound business decision" may not be a sound economic decision. Business doing what business does (accumulating profits) leads to economic catastrophe like the Great Depression. I'll get to that later.

Since you would like to hear specific antidotes, I suggest that we look very closely at international and national laws governing corporations. I for one would like to be taxed like a corporation (able to deduct expenses, depreciate capital goods, taxed only on my "profits"), held only to the standard of fiduciary responsibility to my stockholders (myself), escape liability for any incidental deaths that I might have caused on my way to grabbing more money, blighting my neighborhood if it doesn't suit my bottom line to do otherwise.


I'm going to discuss what Rue brought up but from a slightly different angle about the difference between economic and business decisions. Looking at the macroeconomic scale, let's say that starting today we track production and consumption. By the end of the week (Saturday) we total up all produced goods- everything from locally-produced fish-paste to supercomputers. Now these businesses have to cover their expenses: utilities, labor, raw materials, finance charges, rent, taxes and so forth. Then add what they think they can get away as "profit" to generate a final price. In sum, the value of goods produced is (say) a trillion dollars and the amount of money paid to labor is 900 million. No matter how you slice and dice the data, the amount paid to "labor" is ALWAYS less than the value of goods produced on a global scale. And each time that cyle turns over, the difference gets bigger and bigger.

The issue is- What becomes of those unsold goods? Or conversely, what happens to that "excess" money (profit)? Is there are mechanism by which it re-enters the "food chain" and can be used to consume those "excess goods"?

There are a few mechanisms for the money to re-enter the consumption cycle (profit goes to pay shareholders and financial insitutions which partly represent pension plans and individual investors) but by and large they money goes to a few wealthy individuals and corporations. And again, each cycle cumulalatively adds to the pile.

Since there are only so many yachts that one can buy and servants that one can hire, wealthy individuals don't create the demand that average people do. They speculate in fine art, land, precious metals, currencies, and gems which is a pretty localized cycle. They also invest in stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments- leading to an even greater precentage of control and removing more money from the consumption cycle.

And businesses will (or should) invest in technologies or locations that save money- primarily labor costs- removing more money from the consumption cycle. The other possibility is that they will acquire other businesses which leads to "streamlining"- which of course removes even MORE money from the cosumption cycle. So those "excess goods" keep piling up.

The last people to tackle this specifically were Henry Ford and John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression. They both realized that "business doing what business does" created the crash. Ford actually kept his factories running far beyond the demand for his cars, realizing that people without jobs can't buy goods. Keynes instituted monetary policies- expanding the monetary supplies through deficit government spending- to put money into the hands of the consumers. He figured 3% inflation could keep consumption going DESPITE the continual siphoning out of the consumption cycle (demand side).

So nationalizing a sector and not making "sound business decisions" may be a sound economic decision.

Since you're looking for specific suggestions, I would suggest that the world create an economic policy board with responsibilities abvoe and beyond creating "free- trade" (the mantra of captilasim) to balance production and consumption

Enough for now!





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 22, 2004 11:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Trust me, you wouldn't want to hear mine.



Actually, I would. Provide me with a better solution.

Quote:


"When I look at your "Ponzi scheme" (another mis-definition, BTW)" How so?



Definitions of a Ponzi Scheme abound. They usually involve bilking investors by using the take from later investors to pay off the first ones, making the scheme look profitable. Another version of the pyramid scheme. http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm


Quote:

People have been putting food on the table and improving their lives long before capitalism, and will continue to do so should it disappear. The difference is, in other schemes (not every other scheme, but other ones) they keep 100% of the fruits of their efforts, not merely a portion.


Nope. Even if they're just subsistance farming, they have to use some of the fruits of their efforts to by new implements to farm with.

Quote:

You truly subscribe to the trickle-down theory I take it. Check out the history of the Great Depression to prove that lots of money in the hands of a few people does not equate to jobs.


When did I say that? The Depression was more a cautionary tale about the problems with speculation than with capitalism.


Quote:

See above. It does not require capitalists, or capitalism, or government, for people to be able to get water, food and shelter.


Maybe if the world population was half a billion or less. The current population requires massive investments in infrastructure to survive at all. Without capitalism, where does this come from?


Quote:

I have not enough time right now to prove to you all the ways you are seriously wrong. But one thing you said IS true: government and business often act in concert to the detriment of nearly everyone.


You keep making these statements of your opinion as though they were fact. Prove them.





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 22, 2004 12:08 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm going to discuss what Rue brought up but from a slightly different angle about the difference between economic and business decisions. Looking at the macroeconomic scale, let's say that starting today we track production and consumption. By the end of the week (Saturday) we total up all produced goods- everything from locally-produced fish-paste to supercomputers. Now these businesses have to cover their expenses: utilities, labor, raw materials, finance charges, rent, taxes and so forth. Then add what they think they can get away as "profit" to generate a final price. In sum, the value of goods produced is (say) a trillion dollars and the amount of money paid to labor is 900 million. No matter how you slice and dice the data, the amount paid to "labor" is ALWAYS less than the value of goods produced on a global scale. And each time that cyle turns over, the difference gets bigger and bigger.

The issue is- What becomes of those unsold goods? Or conversely, what happens to that "excess" money (profit)? Is there are mechanism by which it re-enters the "food chain" and can be used to consume those "excess goods"?




What happens the the "Excess" profit? It goes as dividends to the people who were willing to risk their money by investing it in the fish-paste or supercomputer factories. If they weren't willing to risk the capital to develop or improve those industries, we might be able to make our own fishpaste, but we'd never have much in the way of manufactured goods, from blenders to supercomputers.

The folks who are lucky enough to invest in a profitable entity take the money they derive from it and spend it, save it, or re-invest it. If they spend it, part of it ends up as wages for the folks who work at the places they buy from. If they save or invest it, pretty much the same thing happens at another remove.

I have asked again and again of both you and Rue; show me an example of a better system anywhere in the world. All I get from you are criticism and questions, but no answers. It's easy to poke holes in any system, but much harder to actually come up with a better solution. Tell me, what will work better?

I think that both of you are afraid to posit any other system because you aren't sure if it is defensible. You have had your inning griping about the ills of capitalist democracies, so why not put up your alternative and let me take the offense for a while?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 22, 2004 5:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

spend it, save it, or re-invest it. If they spend it, part of it ends up as wages for the folks who work at the places they buy from. If they save or invest it, pretty much the same thing happens at another remove.


Except that savings and re-investment exacerbate the imbalance. Once the imbalance grow large enough, you wind up with an economic depression.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 22, 2004 7:06 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
That's right. It's no longer a matter of any significance. The fanatics on both sides are never going to change their minds, and us folk in the middle are so tired of seeing that poor dead horse get beat that we don't care much anymore. Maybe somewhere down the road there'll be an impeachment or and exoneration, and we'll read about it in the paper.

So you pro and anti guys go ahead and prepare for the crucifiction, or canonization, or whatever, and the rest of us will worry about stuff that can actually be resolved.


"Keep the Shiny side up"



Forgive me for showing up late and not having time to read the thread. I know I'm risking repeating what may have been said over and over.

Yes it still does matter. If people just went "Who cares, it doesn't matter anymore" then there is presidence for people doing this sort of thing again and again because people don't care. If people don't care then there will be no impeachment, no reprocussions what-so-ever.

If you actually want to fix things then people are going to have to listen to eachother. And since both sides aren't doing that everything by default has become unsolvable.

This is the issue that must be resolved before anything else will get done, and the perfect place to do that is the next election. I just hope you guys down there make sure that that crazy guy doesn't get back in. Whether you like him or not you can't deny the fact that he has damaged the country and it's international relations greatly with no sign of stopping. That alone, whether you like him or not, makes him unworthy of continuing his unholy reign.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 23, 2004 1:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

spend it, save it, or re-invest it. If they spend it, part of it ends up as wages for the folks who work at the places they buy from. If they save or invest it, pretty much the same thing happens at another remove.


Except that savings and re-investment exacerbate the imbalance. Once the imbalance grow large enough, you wind up with an economic depression.



Leaving aside that I obviously have a different opinion about this, I keep asking for you to propose something better, and don't hear anything. Why should I give up a system that, while admittedly not perfect, provides more people with better lives than any other, when no alternative that is better, or even as good, is shown to me?

I don't think you can do it. I don't think that you can show me a better real-world system of government and economics than a capitalist democracy. If you could, you would have done so by now, instead of all this sniping.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL