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

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 18:35
VIEWED: 11068
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:15 PM (P)

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"

ARODIN

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:03 PM (P)

He's a politician. Of course he lied.

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:17 PM (P)

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"

RADHIL

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 10:41 PM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:02 PM (P)

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!

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:05 PM (P)

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"

CREVANREAVER

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:07 PM (P)

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/

RADHIL

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:27 PM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:14 AM (P)

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.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:34 AM (P)

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.

RADHIL

Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:45 AM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:54 AM (P)

hahaha!!!

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

GEEZER

Thursday, August 12, 2004 11:31 AM (P)

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"

SGTGUMP

Thursday, August 12, 2004 12:48 PM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 12, 2004 1:26 PM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:09 PM (P)

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".

GEEZER

Thursday, August 12, 2004 2:26 PM (P)

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"

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, August 12, 2004 3:10 PM (P)

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?

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:02 PM (P)

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???

RADHIL

Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:43 PM (P)

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

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:25 PM (P)

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

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:39 PM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Friday, August 13, 2004 10:11 PM (P)

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?

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 14, 2004 12:38 PM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 2:41 AM (P)

No proactive plans for Iraq, Iran or the Mideast?

RUE

Thursday, August 19, 2004 3:57 AM (P)

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.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:00 AM (P)

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.

RUE

Friday, August 20, 2004 3:58 AM (P)

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.

RUE

Friday, August 20, 2004 5:26 AM (P)

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 ....

PIRATEJENNY

Friday, August 20, 2004 8:39 AM (P)

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

SIGNYM

Friday, August 20, 2004 10:46 AM (P)

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.

GEEZER

Friday, August 20, 2004 12:05 PM (P)

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"

HKCAVALIER

Friday, August 20, 2004 12:56 PM (P)

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.

SPACEMONKEY

Friday, August 20, 2004 1:12 PM (P)

"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!!

GEEZER

Friday, August 20, 2004 1:48 PM (P)

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"

SIGNYM

Friday, August 20, 2004 7:56 PM (P)

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.

GEEZER

Friday, August 20, 2004 10:16 PM (P)

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"

SIGNYM

Friday, August 20, 2004 11:31 PM (P)

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:40 AM (P)

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"

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 21, 2004 2:06 AM (P)

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.

RUE

Saturday, August 21, 2004 2:40 AM (P)

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, August 21, 2004 3:41 PM (P)

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"

GEEZER

Saturday, August 21, 2004 4:10 PM (P)

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"

RUE

Sunday, August 22, 2004 3:39 AM (P)

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.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 22, 2004 5:36 PM (P)

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- leadin

GEEZER

Sunday, August 22, 2004 9:46 PM (P)

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"

GEEZER

Sunday, August 22, 2004 10:08 PM (P)

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"

SIGNYM

Monday, August 23, 2004 3:22 AM (P)

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.

SIGMANUNKI

Monday, August 23, 2004 5:06 AM (P)

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

GEEZER

Monday, August 23, 2004 11:10 AM (P)

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"

SIGNYM

Monday, August 23, 2004 3:04 PM (P)

Geezer- please look up "positive feedback".

I've already proposed something better: Since the current situation is entirely created by law, change the laws that define corporations and govern trade. I have a myriad suggestions, ranging from limited to sweeping, and each one would require a discussion. Here are a few examples:

Because corporations (as synthetic persons) are treated favorably under the law, make the laws that govern corporations the same as laws that govern people. For example, equalize the laws regarding tax, theft, liability and criminality. Institute the equivalent of corporate jail time (the Board and exective officers get replaced en masse) and (if you believe in the death penalty) the corporate death penalty (forced liquidation).
Place the same liabilities on corporations that are on people and expect the same responsible "behavior". Require corporations (and all business) to protect employee consitutional rights, such as the right of privacy and the right of free speech. (Most people have the mis-impression that the consitutional ammendments guarantee their rights vis a vis business. They do not.)

Eliminate the option of "publicly traded" businesses. Stock ownership creates a special distortion in business management that is tied to the quarterly report and stock price, leading to very short-term thinkingand speculation. (Business can raise capital through bonds, loans, partnerships etc.)

Engineer trade agreements to recognize and reward responsible government. Place progressive tariffs on nations that don't (1) have universal, UN-recognised elections (2) allow the formation of national and international trade unions (3) have environmental protection laws that allow sustainable development.

Eliminate the notion of "intellectual property", which stilfes rather than enhances technological development.

Eliminate the corporate business form completely. Replace it with cooperative business forms.

Place banking and currecny exchange under national and international regulation, and remove it from speculation.

I have lots more ideas, some have more merit than others. The limit isn't "What we can do instead" but the will to engage in thinking and acting along these lines.

GEEZER

Monday, August 23, 2004 5:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because corporations (as synthetic persons) are treated favorably under the law, make the laws that govern corporations the same as laws that govern people. For example, equalize the laws regarding tax, theft, liability and criminality. Institute the equivalent of corporate jail time (the Board and exective officers get replaced en masse) and (if you believe in the death penalty) the corporate death penalty (forced liquidation).

Equalizing the tax rates would probably either raise prices or force mass failures or both, and would probably impact smaller businesses worse than larger. Also remember that employers already have the tax burden of having to match their employee's FICA and FUTA tax, as well as collect and forward their withholding to IRS, and can be fined or jailed for failure to do so.

I take it that the liability you mention is corporate liability for breaking laws, not product liability, and I have no problem with tougher laws relating to criminality and theft.

Firing the board just cuts them loose with their money, and liquidating the business just puts folk out of work. Making the directors criminally liable for jail time or fines (as IRS does now for failure to pay FICA, FUTA, WH) works better, IMO.

Quote:

Require corporations (and all business) to protect employee consitutional rights, such as the right of privacy and the right of free speech.

A business has the right (though not Constitutional) to expect that it's employees will be performing work when they are at work. Monitoring email or phone traffic seem to me valid ways to verify this. I'd think that a business should be required to notify it's employees if it is going to do this, and set some policy about appropriate use of systems.

Quote:
Eliminate the option of "publicly traded" businesses. Stock ownership creates a special distortion in business management that is tied to the quarterly report and stock price, leading to very short-term thinking and speculation. (Business can raise capital through bonds, loans, partnerships etc.)

Bonds are usually issued by municipal or governmental entities which can guarantee a return. A bond without such a guarantee is just stock by another name. Banks aren't going to loan money on risky ventures, thus stifling development of new ideas. I'm not sure there is enough money in banks to provide all the capital needed in any case. Engineering a transition away from the current system while protecting the money of the people who already own stock would be interesting as well.

Quote:
Engineer trade agreements to recognize and reward responsible government. Place progressive tariffs on nations that don't (1) have universal, UN-recognised elections (2) allow the formation of national and international trade unions (3) have environmental protection laws that allow sustainable development.

I would agree with this in principle, but I see difficulties in implementing it. Note the divisiveness in the UN over such obvious right and wrong (to me, anyway) situations as in Sudan. I also see fun coming up with a definition of "sustainable development" that everyone would agree with.

Quote:

Eliminate the notion of "intellectual property", which stifles rather than enhances technological development.

Eliminate copyright and patents? Then what's a person's motivation to invent, or a business' motivation to provide that person with the resources to invent? Recognition of a great idea or advance in technology is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't pay the bills for the investment it took to develop that idea or advance.

Quote:
Eliminate the corporate business form completely. Replace it with cooperative business forms.

Quoting from the National Cooperative Business Association site http://www.ncba.coop/abcoop_ab_values.cfm (emphasis mine):

"A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspiration

RUE

Monday, August 23, 2004 9:49 PM (P)

Geezer,
The last time I tried to prove my claims TO YOU about the 'Bush and admin lied about WMD' topic, you didn't have enough time to read it, were not interested, couldn't be bothered, etc etc. A million reasons, and none.

In another discussion with a poster who demanded 'proof' and then dismissed it, he NEVER supported any of HIS claims with facts.

As you have not supported any of yours. Since you already blew me off once when I attempted to demonstrate the facts, how about you prove your claims? I'll be happy to demand, criticize, dismiss and ignore.

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:01 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,
As you have not supported any of yours. Since you already blew me off once when I attempted to demonstrate the facts, how about you prove your claims? I'll be happy to demand, criticize, dismiss and ignore.

My claim is that capitalist democracies currently provide a higher standard of living for more of their population than any other system. My claim is supported by the UN Human Development Index http://hdr.undp.org/ as noted above, which basically shows that the best places to live are democratic republics with a capitalist, or at least free-market, economy. I do not claim that they are perfect, or that they cannot be improved, just that there is currently nothing that works better.

Where I work I can hear my fellow employees speaking Spanish, and Mandarin, and Bantu, and Arabic, and other languages I have no clue about. They are employees and contractors in a IT shop and are making a good living. They came here because they realize this is the place to get ahead, the place where there is opportunity.

Would I like to see the folks who haven't made it do better? Of course. Could we do more? No doubt.For example, I think the recent change in overtime rules is pretty bogus. But I'd rather improve on the basis we have than tear down the whole thing and try to start from scratch.

SignyM was kind enough to share a few ideas, some of which I agreed with, some I didn't, and some that I wouldn't mind seeing but don't think can realistically be implemented. At least in this way we have some common ground.

And that's the goal here, to get some common ground. You and I may never agree about whether Bush lied, or about how important it may be if he did or didn't. We probably don't agree about a lot of stuff. We're individuals, not from the same mold. But there's probably stuff we do agree about. Why not work on that for a while?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:12 AM (P)

Oh, and just to show that I'm not 100% happy with things, lets get rid of all this business money in politics. Whether it's Big Oil or George Soros, anyone putting tens of millions of dollars into 527s and party warchests is going to expect a lot in return. I'd drastically limit the amount of money, hard and soft, that could be spent, and probably set a time window for campaigning.

And while I'm at it, what's with this Marriage Amendment nonesense? That's just crazy talk.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:41 PM (P)

You can't prove it.
It doesn't matter.
I don't have time.

--------------------------

Rue (with apologies to Geezer) but the above are/ were so easily disproved that they can only be seen as avoidance. Geezer can't approach the concept "Bush lied about WMD" with equanimity; it generates enough fear to make the topic off-limits.

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 4:13 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You can't prove it.
It doesn't matter.
I don't have time.

--------------------------

Rue (with apologies to Geezer) but the above are/ were so easily disproved that they can only be seen as avoidance. Geezer can't approach the concept "Bush lied about WMD" with equanimity; it generates enough fear to make the topic off-limits.

Guys, I expect politicians to lie, and if not lie then spin facts to their needs. Knowing that Bush "lied" instead of "spun" wouldn't be a revelation to me. That's why it doesn't matter as much to me as, say, reproductive rights(for), the "marriage amendment"(against), changes in overtime laws(against the latest one), campaign reform(for), tax reform(for, but it's tricky), gun rights(for...cold dead hands, etc.), ethnic cleansing(I'm so pissed about the waffling on Sudan. I want UN peacekeepers in there last year), etc. A politician lying is just "...so what else is new?" to me.

"Bush Lied" isn't the only issue here, for me and for a lot of other folk. The one-note thing just wears us out. Above are seven other things I'd rather discuss, plus the "Capitalist Democracies; Threat or Menace?" one we already have going.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 6:27 PM (P)

Geezer,

My approach is this: either facts lead to opinions, or they are mere rhetorical decorations on pre-formed opinions. To be fact-based, one has to be willing to look at ALL facts.

I am willing to have a fact-based discussion, but 1) having been burned once, by you, on this very effort, I'm reluctant to spend a lot of time on it and 2) so far my facts encompass yours.

Here are some examples, at length:

Quote:
Even if they're just subsistence farming, they have to use some of the fruits of their efforts to buy new implements to farm with.

We could go around and around about this, so I’ll lay out some proposals, and ahead of time attempt to meet some objections you may raise.

Capitalism is a limited system in a very recent time-frame of human existence.

One could define capitalism so loosely that even the ancient Aztecs could be considered capitalists, but that obliterates meaningful and important distinctions. For capitalism to exist as we understand it, there has to be a formal monetary economy and ownership rules, and a government that regulates and enforces them. Another (inexplicit) aspect of capitalism is that one person (or corporation) owns the ‘means of production’ but does NOT provide the labor. The labor comes from those who don’t own the means of production and who depend on selling their labor for survival (the ‘wage slaves’). Or as the Felicia Rishad said on the Cosby show, "We work for our money, rich people have their money work for them."
Even today there are economies that don’t use (or understand) money, though they do barter. I propose they are not capitalist. Additionally, those societies where one "owns" the digging stick, bow and arrow, net, canoe etc, but also provides the labor are not capitalist. To have put in effort to get extra fish, and then to have used those extra fish to trade for cloth doesn’t make the means of survival capitalist. The person is merely exchanging some of the benefits of their labor (which they wholly own) for another thing they think will also benefit them. And finally, currently a minimum of 1 billion people do not live under systems that can be considered capitalist.
Historically there have been societies (not every society, but some) where a ruling elite claims the right to both resources and labor. The Egyptians, Aztecs, Chinese Empires, Romans, and even the recent European feudal system (serfs were specifically part of the land) did that. However, these systems were religious in authority, not economic. As people did not trade their labor for survival, no bargain was struck.
One can only speculate about very early human groups, and further back to the proto-humans. But I think you will agree that if chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas survive without capitalism, then in the vast interlude of millions of years between common ancestors and now, capitalism probably did not contribute to animal survival.
Having established, I believe, that people survived nearly all of their existence WITHOUT capitalism, and that it is a recent human construct, let's examine the question this comment opens:

Quote:
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?

You propose people need capitalism. My contention is capitalism needs people, not the other way around.
Let's casually look at 'capital' investment and infrastructure. (A definition of capital will follow later.) And let's also casually look at Africa, since it's come up already. Angola used to be self-sufficient for food - they met the 'survival' standard you propose. As happens in many African countries, small remote villages were stable. In the war (which the US fomented BTW specifically to ruin the economy and drive out the socialist government) men either joined the forces, fled or were killed. That left the old people, women and children in the remote villages vulnerable to attack. Most sought safety in the cities. Suddenly these s

SHEWOLF

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 7:54 PM (P)

Did Bush lie? That's a good question, my opinion is that he was mislead. Who hasn't been mislead. Personally to have a president lie is a big deal, you loose that trust factor. You wonder about everything they say from that point forward. So would we say that Bush's big lie is the WMD. Wonder what Kerry's could be, if elected. He has to have one, he's a politician. Is he spouting lies now. Is the whole swift boat ordeal a lie, I would like to know. If it's not why doesn't he sue those men for slander, defamation of character or something. That could possibly shut them up. This shouldn't be a big deal for his race for the White House, except that he brought up his service. So he does need to defend it. I know my father's Purple Hearts are real. But he doesn't brag about his service.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:34 PM (P)

The SBVT are lying. Not only are they contradicting themsleves, they're contradicting the written record and - more importantly- they are contradicting testimony of the soldiers who were physically closest to the action. In the incident where Kerry earned the Silve Star, the third Swift Boat commander- who has kept silent about his experience all these years- came out publically two days ago saying that Kerry's version in the correct one.

But this is typical of Bush and his advisors. He smeared the records of two other Vietnam heroes- John McCain and Max Cleland- when they were running for office.

Which leads me to...

Bush's "TRUST FACTOR????"

Bush lies about everything he CAN lie about. Try matching up the titles of his programs to their actual effects: "kinder, gentler nation" "leave no child behind" "Clean Skies Initiative"
"Healthy Forests Initiative"

To give you another less well-known example of the Bush prevarication machine: A close vote on the Medicare Drug bill was expected. Some Senators vowed that they would not vote for the bill if it was over a threshold. When the Chief Actuary ran the calculations and found it would cost more than expected- and more than was politically acceptable- he was threatened with termination if he were to provide those figures to the Senate. The person who threatened the actuary was a Bush appointee. The Bill was passed, providing a bonanaza to the pharmas.

While I expect politicians to shade the truth, I have not seen this level of dishonesty over so many important issues in decades. The last time I saw so many lies was Kissinger... and for those young-uns here, that's ancient hx.

BTW- Public figures can't sue for slander. That's part of the deal when you run for office- anybody can say anything about you.

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SheWolf:
Is the whole swift boat ordeal a lie, I would like to know. If it's not why doesn't he sue those men for slander, defamation of character or something.

Kerry is taking legal action, but not for slander.

Kerry takes legal action against Vietnam critics
Friday, Aug. 20
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040820/ts_alt_afp/us_vo
te_kerry_vietnam_040820214246

Kerry's campaign announced it had "filed a legal complaint against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth before the Federal Election Commission for violating the law with inaccurate ads that are illegally coordinated with the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.

The New York Times on Friday reported that there is a "web of connections" between the Swift Boat group and the "Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove."

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:07 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,

For capitalism to exist as we understand it, there has to be a formal monetary economy and ownership rules, and a government that regulates and enforces them. Another (inexplicit) aspect of capitalism is that one person (or corporation) owns the ‘means of production’ but does NOT provide the labor. The labor comes from those who don’t own the means of production and who depend on selling their labor for survival (the ‘wage slaves’).

Yep. Need a form of money everyone agrees on, and need a government that keeps things stable enough to make investment not too risky. I don't think that everyone 'depends' on selling their labor to the capitalist for survival. Many choose to use their own capital and labor and go into business for themselves. Others opt out entirely and go live on that subsistance farm. It's not that monolithic a system. People who don't want to work for "The Man" cand find alternatives.

Quote:

Even today there are economies that don’t use (or understand) money, though they do barter. I propose they are not capitalist. Additionally, those societies where one "owns" the digging stick, bow and arrow, net, canoe etc, but also provides the labor are not capitalist. To have put in effort to get extra fish, and then to have used those extra fish to trade for cloth doesn’t make the means of survival capitalist. The person is merely exchanging some of the benefits of their labor (which they wholly own) for another thing they think will also benefit them. And finally, currently a minimum of 1 billion people do not live under systems that can be considered capitalist.

and a large proportion of them live right at subsistance level, where a drought, or a bad hunt, or an empty net is a life-threatening event. I'll pass on that, if you please.

Quote:
Historically there have been societies (not every society, but some) where a ruling elite claims the right to both resources and labor. The Egyptians, Aztecs, Chinese Empires, Romans, and even the recent European feudal system (serfs were specifically part of the land) did that. However, these systems were religious in authority, not economic.

Authoritarian societies may co-opt religion, or marxism, or some other belief as a basis for their rule, but the sword is the authority, not the word. The authoritarian models admittedly don't work to good for anybody but the authorities. Democracies seem to provide better for more folk.

Quote:
One can only speculate about very early human groups, and further back to the proto-humans. But I think you will agree that if chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas survive without capitalism, then in the vast interlude of millions of years between common ancestors and now, capitalism probably did not contribute to animal survival.

Probably didn't, but I don't choose to live my life like a gorilla.

Quote:

...And let's also casually look at Africa, since it's come up already. Angola used to be self-sufficient for food - they met the 'survival' standard you propose. As happens in many African countries, small remote villages were stable. In the war (which the US fomented BTW specifically to ruin the economy and drive out the socialist government) men either joined the forces, fled or were killed. That left the old people, women and children in the remote villages vulnerable to attack. Most sought safety in the cities. Suddenly these self-sufficient people who didn't need either capitalists or government became dependent. (In England large land-holders threw tenants off the farms. These tenants ended up in cities where they became a captive labor force for industry. That was in the good old heyday of raw unregulated capitalism, work-houses and brutal poverty for most of England.)
What would it take to restore Angolan self-sufficiency? Demining and a stable potable water supply (Jimmy Carter and former Treasury Secretary O'Neill both concluded that). These two infrastructure requirements don't need large capital investments, tho

RUE

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 1:31 AM (P)

Quote:
It's not that monolithic a system.

Some people do 'find' alternatives within a limited range of choices, but people haven't (yet) restructured society to change the choices. It's still about finding a higher perch in the cage, or a more remote perch, or a more comfortable perch, but it's still a perch in the cage, and the cage is not under your control.

Quote:
and a large proportion of them live right at subsistence level

You are either evading the point or in error. My statement

Quote:
they keep 100% of the fruits of their efforts, not merely a portion.

Your reply

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

The point is that people can realize the full value of their work, and don't have to be deprived of a portion of its value by their status as 'labor'. (as compared to say sneakers made for Nike at less than $1/pr, sold for $60-120.)
But to address your point which you seem to have made in error:

Quote:
and a large proportion of them live right at subsistence level

you are confusing the benefits of technology with capitalism. Even the most rudimentary economic and historic models distinguish the two. (most recently Jared Diamond "Guns, Germs and Steel")

Quote:
Authoritarian societies ... or Marxism ... but the sword is the authority. The authoritarian models admittedly don't work too good for anybody but the authorities.

There is way too much scrambled together that doesn't belong. Capitalism DOES enforce its rule with the sword, the bomber, missile, machine gun etc.
As to which systems 'work' better, when the USSR broke up and countries became capitalist, male lifespan across the board dropped by a third. Infant mortality more than doubled.
Countries with highly socialist governments (even at lower, and much lower technology levels) have longer average lifespans and lower infant mortality than the US. (You'll have to take my word on this. I did the study, but with a few exceptions the urls are no longer active; and the 100+ page reports won't fit on this website.) In some simple illustrations: China's life expectancy is significantly higher than India's (69.4yrs/62.9 and 72.8/63.9) and its infant mortality roughly half that of India's (39 per thousand/68). http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/journal/1999/v14n4a2.htm
Kerala, a highly socialist state in India has an infant mortality rate of 16, literacy rates of M94/F88%, and a life expectancy of 68 years. http://www.expert-eyes.org/kerala.html
China of course is communist, while India is capitalist. Kerala as mentioned is highly socialist.
The schemes you claim don't work do seem to work well for people where it counts - which is life and death.

Quote:
The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is 244 people per square kilometer. They need the infrastructure that is best supported by a capitalist free-market system to live.

This is another example of confusion between technology and economic system. The rest of the post rests on the false conflation of technology and capitalism.

Finally, the fact that YOU are personally comfortable, or that I am personally comfortable is not a valid measure of capitalism's 'success'.

Africa is the other face of capitalism. We do well because others starve.

RUE

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 1:58 AM (P)

Shewolf,

Quote:
Did Bush lie? That's a good question, my opinion is that he was mislead.

Gosh, I thought no one was going to bring this up.
On another thread I had started on the first of what was to have been a series of postings showing Bush and his entire administration DID knowingly, intentionally - lie.
My points were, and were to have been, referenced to extended contextual quotes from credible sources: the White House website, Senate Committee Report, 9/11 report etc.
I does take a lot of time getting this up on the board. Some documents (Senate Committee) can't be manipulated with standard PDF tools. If you have an interest, I'll repost the original here, and continue posting my research at about 1/week.
Rue

RUE

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:05 AM (P)

Oh what the heck, here it is anyway.
This was part of an ongoing debate, so the tone is brisk. The other postings can be more relaxed:

I'm going to make a number of assumptions to speed things up. I'm going to assume you're familiar with or have access to the text of Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, comments by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al regarding Iraq's WMD, Colin Powell's UN address, David Kay's final report (his final report, not 'the' final report), the Senate report and the 9/11 Commission report. I'm also going to assume you have sufficient memory of, or access to, news reporting from that time frame.

A 'yes' answer will also speed things up, a 'no' answer will take more of your time.
----------
1) Do you agree that the DIA, Office of Special Plans and the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group answer to Rumsfeld?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not. A 'no' explanation also requires references to ORIGINAL documents only, with links. I'm not going to spend time addressing some flack's 'interpretations'.
----------
From the Senate Armed Services Committee

Quote:
MR. KAY: Senator Warner ... I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there..

Quote:
SEN. LEVIN: Dr. Kay, on the question of stockpiles, you have stated, I believe, that in your opinion Iraq did not have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in 2002. Is that correct?
MR. KAY: That's correct, Senator.
SEN. LEVIN: Do you have any evidence that they had any stockpiles,
large or small, in 2002?
MR. KAY: Simply have no evidence, Senator.
SEN. LEVIN: You have not uncovered any evidence of small stockpiles?
MR. KAY: We have not uncovered any small stockpiles, that's correct.

2) Do you accept David Kay's conclusion that Iraq had no large or small biological or chemical weapons stockpiles?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.

Since Iraq did not have existing nuclear weapons, the question was one of nuclear weapons programs rather than stockpiles.

Quote:
SEN. LEVIN: -- in your judgment, had Iraq reconstituted its nuclear weapon program, in the way you understand the word "reconstitute"?
MR. KAY: It was in the early stages of renovating the program,
building new buildings. It was not a reconstituted, full-blown nuclear program.

Quote:
SEN. ALLARD: Did they use the aluminum tubes at that point in time to enrich their uranium? Do we know --
MR. KAY: No, they did not. They relied on different processes.

3) Do you accept David Kay's conclusion that Iraq had no nuclear programs?
Yes
No
If 'no', please explain why not, with links to original documents.
----------

Quote:
On October 4,2002, the NSC (Condoleezza Rice) sent a draft of a speech they were preparing for the President to deliver in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was draft six of the speech and contained the line, “and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa -an essential ingredient in the enrichment process.”
On October 5,2002, the ADDI .. asked the analysts to bring forward any issues that they thought should be addressed with the NSC. The ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq.
Based on the analyst’s comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy National Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, “remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of ura

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:01 AM (P)

In other words- Bush lied. But please continue. I'm interested in where this is going. I don't have the time to do the detailed research that you do, so I'd like to hear what you have to say.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 11:34 AM (P)

Geezer- You seem uncertain as to whether African, Latin American, Indian, etc. poverty is mainly related to socialism:

"it's because his government nationalized the mine,... or authoritarianism:

".... set his wages below a living wage, and jail or kill him if he protests."
"The authoritarian models admittedly don't work to good for anybody but the authorities. Democracies seem to provide better for more folk."
But quite confident that democracy and capitalsim create prosperity.

Using the same human develpoment index that you reference http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/indices/#1
if you look at impoverished nations, you'll see that far from being "nationalized", international corporations operate there. Out of many examples, I pick Shell in Nigeria (#151), a number of UK, USA, Chinese and other international companies extracting Congolese (#144) coltran (see UN report www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/2003/1027) Unocal in Burma, Nike in Indonesia, TotalFinaElf-BP in Peru (#85) etc.

Again, citing the same UN development index there are also examples of declines in living standards when essential services and industries were privatized in Russia and Zambia. Other sources provide the basic economic history:
www.zic.org.zm/IPA_Information.asp?hdnGroupID=2&hdnLevelID=1

Now, these nations also had formal elections and contain the intersection of both "capitalism" and "democracy". Clearly, neither capitalism by itself nor a combination of capitalism and democracy is "sufficient" to guarantee prosperity.

I can also point to nations that are more properous than the USA that are socialist democracies (Sweden #1, Denmark #2) and nations that are socialist authoritarian regimes (Cuba, China) that are relatively properous when compared to their capitalist counterparts. In fact, Cuba outranks Latin America with the exceptions of Costa Rica* and Chile. So it seems that "capitalism + democracy" is neither necessary nor sufficient for prosperity.

Do you agree?

-------------------------------------

Enough for now.

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

(I said)"It's not that monolithic a system."

(You replied)Some people do 'find' alternatives within a limited range of choices, but people haven't (yet) restructured society to change the choices. It's still about finding a higher perch in the cage, or a more remote perch, or a more comfortable perch, but it's still a perch in the cage, and the cage is not under your control.

Even if you're the independent subsistance farmer, the cage isn't under your control. It's the cage of nature, of drought, of crop disease, of locusts, of injury. You can invest 100% of your labor and get all the return that's available and still starve to death if any of a dozen thing go wrong. Unfortunately, this happens all the time.

Quote:
(I said)"and a large proportion of them live right at subsistence level"

(You replied)But to address your point which you seem to have made in error...you are confusing the benefits of technology with capitalism. Even the most rudimentary economic and historic models distinguish the two. (most recently Jared Diamond "Guns, Germs and Steel")

I am aware of the difference between technology and capitalism. My point is that capitalism, specifically capitalist democracies, supports the advancement of technology most effectively. Capitalist democracies are generally the most technologically advanced countries.

Quote:
Capitalism DOES enforce its rule with the sword, the bomber, missile, machine gun etc.

Can't deny that this has happened. I'd say to a lesser extent than in non-capitalist non-democracies. China and the former Soviet Union come to mind.

Quote:
As to which systems 'work' better, when the USSR broke up and countries became capitalist, male lifespan across the board dropped by a third. Infant mortality more than doubled.

I would disagree that the former USSR has become capitalist. They're still having a difficult time transitioning to true democracy. They are in a rough transition phase right now as they move from one system to another. They may not even settle on a capitalist model.

Quote:
Countries with highly socialist governments (even at lower, and much lower technology levels) have longer average lifespans and lower infant mortality than the US. China's life expectancy is significantly higher than India's (69.4yrs/62.9 and 72.8/63.9) and its infant mortality roughly half that of India's (39 per thousand/68). Kerala, a highly socialist state in India has an infant mortality rate of 16, literacy rates of M94/F88%, and a life expectancy of 68 years. China of course is communist, while India is capitalist. Kerala as mentioned is highly socialist...The schemes you claim don't work do seem to work well for people where it counts - which is life and death.

But lets look at this overall, instead of picking one country or area. Here's a link to a nice map of life expectancy by country.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/maps-life.html

And the overall winners are (gasp) the capitalist, or at least free market, democracies.

Quote:
This is another example of confusion between technology and economic system. The rest of the post rests on the false conflation of technology and capitalism.

I don't consider this a false conflation. I believe that capitalist democracies tend to support the development of technology better than any other system.

Quote:
Finally, the fact that YOU are personally comfortable, or that I am personally comfortable is not a valid measure of capitalism's 'success'.

Africa is the other face of capitalism. We do well because others starve.

I'd be interested in your definition of "success".

Africa's problems are generated by a combination of things. I'll agree that exploitation is one of them, along with the legacy of colonialism, tribal and factional strife, corrupt government, AIDS, etc. To blame it all on capitalism, or more specifically capitalist democracies,is a gross oversimplificatio

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 1:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, these nations also had formal elections and contain the intersection of both "capitalism" and "democracy". Clearly, neither capitalism by itself nor a combination of capitalism and democracy is "sufficient" to guarantee prosperity.

Capitalism and Democracy are not a guarantee of prosperity. Note that in my previous posts I tend to use words and phrases like "generally" "more likely". My contention is that overall, capitalist democracies are more successful.

I'm also not sure that the countries of the former soviet union have yet reached either stable democracies or stable echonomic systems.

Quote:
I can also point to nations that are more properous than the USA that are socialist democracies (Sweden #1, Denmark #2) and nations that are socialist authoritarian regimes (Cuba, China) that are relatively properous when compared to their capitalist counterparts. In fact, Cuba outranks Latin America with the exceptions of Costa Rica* and Chile. So it seems that "capitalism + democracy" is neither necessary nor sufficient for prosperity.

Do you agree?

Enough for now.

The CIA factbook (no plot, just the first source I googled) calls Sweden a Constitutional Monarchy, and a "mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits." so not pure socialism by any stretch. Norway is also a Constitutional Monarchy. "The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention." http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

And I am aware that there are some socialist (actually more communist in the cases of Cuba and China) authoritarian regimes that are better off than some capitalist democracies, but in general this is not the case. And besides, would you really rather live under an authoritarian regime?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:15 PM (P)

It's a tennet of science that you can never prove a hypothesis, only disprove it. So if your hypothesis doesn't work in all cases, it must be modified.

If you look at the poorest nations, you will also see that they are generally capitalist and often have elections as well.

I propose a different hypothesis. I believe that I can show, both historically and geographically, that the introduction of capitalism invariably leads to greater disparity in wealth, which occurs both nationally and internationally. The USA, being the sole world superpower, has managed to export its poverty to other nations (like Peru, Nigeria, and Nicaragua) and therefor capitalism cannot serve as a basis for worldwide prosperity, only for localized prosperity.

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 5:06 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's a tennet of science that you can never prove a hypothesis, only disprove it. So if your hypothesis doesn't work in all cases, it must be modified.

If you look at the poorest nations, you will also see that they are generally capitalist and often have elections as well.

I propose a different hypothesis. I believe that I can show, both historically and geographically, that the introduction of capitalism invariably leads to greater disparity in wealth, which occurs both nationally and internationally. The USA, being the sole world superpower, has managed to export its poverty to other nations (like Peru, Nigeria, and Nicaragua) and therefor capitalism cannot serve as a basis for worldwide prosperity, only for localized prosperity.

Pulled off the 50 bottom countries on the UN report (beginning with Botswana, #128) and started checking their governments and economies in the CIA fact book. Just have 12 so far. The seven that have a democratic form of government of some type have had that type of government for less than 30 years, following either a colonial or internal authoritarian regieme. The others are a couple of monarchies, and communist or military governments. In the few cases where stats are available, the percent of the workforce employed in industry hovers around 5%, making me wonder if the capitalist label is a good fit. I'll finish tonight and provide you with a nice spreadsheet, if you'd like.

I'll look into the "exporting poverty" in a while. Got a meeting now.

Edit: Looks like the meeting resulted in some homework. May be a bit later on the stats.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:39 PM (P)

Rue and SignyM,

Sorry, but it looks like you lost one in the Socialist ranks.

Hungary Socialists Pick Businessman for PM
Updated: Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2004 - 3:25 PM

By KARL PETER KIRK
Associated Press Writer

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) - The ruling Socialist Party chose one of Hungary's richest businessmen on Wednesday to become the new prime minister, resolving a split with a smaller party that had threatened to undo the center-left governing coalition.

Full story at:

http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=250849

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:50 PM (P)

While you're taking care of business, let me toss out some thoughts as idle speculation. Each one, unfortuantely, deserves a full discussion- something neither one of us probably has the time for.

My hypothesis is that "pure" capitalism progressively concentrates money into fewer and fewer hands. The wealth disparity inevitably creates poverty and unemployment, and by reducing aggregate demand eventually leads to an economic depression (which is distinct from stock market crash and other speculative failures).

Some say that unemployment, poverty, and cyclical economy is the cost of system that is extraordinarily good at creating technological progress and raising the standard of living overall. There are several lines of observation and theory that are generally called on to support this idea.

While acknowldeging brutality during industrialization- such as the slums of London- people often point to the USA, UK, EU, Japan, and the other developed nations as the "happy ending" of the capitalist story. Given time, all nations will be similarly prosperous.

The other aspect that is often pointed to is technological development- the discovery of electronics (for example) and the implementation of labor-saving devices which make production a thousand-fold (or more) efficient than production by hand.

The third aspect that people often point to is a more theoretical one. The difference between the aggregate value of goods produced and the aggregate demand (created mainly by "labor costs") is usually called "profit". However, any time you produce more than you consume, you could also call it "savings". It may be ENFORCED saving, but it's saving nonetheless. This is the power of capitalism.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:20 PM (P)

Just tossing out another point/ observation: It occurred to me that the UN Index of Human Development contains parameters that are not particularly sensitive to increases in economic polarization. For example, indexes based on averages- average life span, average per capita income, even average per capita energy consumption- fall prey to the problem of "averages: If you have ten baseball players sitting on a bench and nine of them make $50,000 a year and the tenth makes $10 million, the average income is over $1 million.

More sensitive indicators would be infant and maternal mortality (deaths per thousand), percent adult literacy, poverty rates etc.

RUE

Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:53 AM (P)

Infant mortality, maternal death rates, literacy rates and average lifespan are all good indicators of overall social well-being. A very wealthy but small group can't improve those averages enough to overcome the figures of the larger group.
Part of that has to do with the ratios of how many people are in one group vs the other. Plus there are other factors that have to do with biological and logical limits, and the mathematics of averages.
With lifespan, you can't raise the lifespan of the small group enough to touch the average. A few people would have to live for thousands of years to make a difference. That is why lifespan is such a powerful metric. It takes A LOT to bring up the average even 6 months.
Infant mortality looks at a limited post-natal timeframe, which reflects months of pre-natal maternal care. It's not something you can change drastically unless you've improved pre-natal conditions enough, for enough women, long enough to be reflected in the average. Plus there is a natural limit in how good the numbers can get for a small, wealthy and healthy group. You can't have an infant mortality of less than zero, and that limits its effects on the overall average. Maternal death rates also fall under these factors.
Literacy has similar considerations. A small wealthy group can't be super-literate. Well, I guess they can be, but it isn't measured, and so rates do reflect overall conditions, rather than the extreme advantages of a small group.

Edited: So, in sum, for a small group to affect the averages of a much larger group, they have to have extreme values. Some parameters (lifespan, infant mortality, maternal mortality, and literacy rates - come to think of it vaccination rates as well) can't attain the extreme values required to skew the average.

RUE

Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:39 AM (P)

Geezer,
I am against capitalism as a dead-end path that leads ultimately to planet-wide destruction. I'm not in favor of socialism per se, but I see it as an improvement over capitalism. I do favor sanity. In fact I have thought of a society which starts at the current technological level, makes use of its guarantees, but redirects economic (and social) goals. I have not seen anything like it discussed anywhere, I can't reference you to papers or other works, and I prefer not to explain it until I have researched and developed it. Rest assured it is not socialism.
"Even if you're the independent subsistence farmer, the cage isn't under your control." I take it you have not lived in another culture. This culture has conformed itself specifically to support the capitalist economic system, but the strictures go beyond economic. You can't choose certain things in the US, not because they are forbidden or too expensive, but because they don't exist.
"Capitalist democracies are generally the most technologically advanced countries." Let me refer you again to "Guns, Germs and Steel". Your impressions (they're too formless to be called ideas) are untenable. You don't take into account the military advantage of 1400's western technology, which led to advantage for western cultures in general; and to obliteration, conquest and colonization around the globe. You casually mention the history of colonization without seeming to realize that other countries were ravaged for centuries by the capitalist countries you continue to portray as benign.
"But lets look at this overall, instead of picking one country or area. Here's a link to a nice map of life expectancy by country."
This is a crock, and so obvious it's an insult. Don't stoop so low, it doesn't become you.

Sub-Saharan Africa has only recently emerged from colonialism. I hope I don't need to enumerate the instability, social destruction, poverty, and lack of development left in the wake. They suffer from many things. But mostly, they suffer not from a lack of capitalism, but from an excess of being on the wrong end.
It's no surprise the Chinese lifespan isn't as long as in western countries. But western countries have a vastly different history than the entire rest of the world (the topic of Guns, Germs and Steel). The divergence starts with the scientific and technological revolution of the Renaissance, 4 centuries before the advent of capitalism. From the Renaissance followed military conquest and colonization; later, mechanization; and finally capitalism, which begat more colonization. Having been the conquerors puts western countries at an advantage over the conquered.
So it is more meaningful (and honest) to compare two non-western countries similar to each other that differ mainly in their economic system - China and India. They both have massive populations. Until recently they were both rural, uneducated, non-industrial countries. Which has the better lifespan? But if you wonder if genetic or other unknown differences account for China's advantage, Kerala, which is a socialist state IN India far outstrips the whole of India.
Whether or not Russia has achieved capitalism, it certainly is no longer communist. And it was at the death of communism that lifespan dropped. Communism was better than whatever took its place.

GEEZER

Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
While you're taking care of business, let me toss out some thoughts as idle speculation. Each one, unfortuantely, deserves a full discussion- something neither one of us probably has the time for.

I'll give my Cliff Notes opinions, though.

Quote:
My hypothesis is that "pure" capitalism progressively concentrates money into fewer and fewer hands. The wealth disparity inevitably creates poverty and unemployment, and by reducing aggregate demand eventually leads to an economic depression (which is distinct from stock market crash and other speculative failures).

If there ever could be a "pure" capitalism, this would probably be true, but pure capitalism in a democratic system is as unlikely to exist as pure marxist socialism. Laws against some of the worse elements of capitalism (monoply, environmental damage, minimum wage, right of labor to organize, etc.) are forced by the voting populace.

Quote:
Some say that unemployment, poverty, and cyclical economy is the cost of system that is extraordinarily good at creating technological progress and raising the standard of living overall. There are several lines of observation and theory that are generally called on to support this idea.

I think that there should be ways to ameliorate these problems within the capitalist system. The Swedish "Middle Way" where taxes on the fruits of a capitalist economy support universal social programs might be worth examining.

Quote:
While acknowldeging brutality during industrialization- such as the slums of London- people often point to the USA, UK, EU, Japan, and the other developed nations as the "happy ending" of the capitalist story. Given time, all nations will be similarly prosperous.

I can't go back in time and resolve the brutality of industrialization, but conditions have improved remarkably for the workers in the industrialized countries you mention. Efforts are underway to improve conditions in countries we export jobs to, but admittedly more could be done.

Quote:
The other aspect that is often pointed to is technological development- the discovery of electronics (for example) and the implementation of labor-saving devices which make production a thousand-fold (or more) efficient than production by hand.

And I tend to believe that the capitalist system supports this better than any other. It provides the incentive (profit)to invest capital in developing advances.

Quote:
The third aspect that people often point to is a more theoretical one. The difference between the aggregate value of goods produced and the aggregate demand (created mainly by "labor costs") is usually called "profit". However, any time you produce more than you consume, you could also call it "savings". It may be ENFORCED saving, but it's saving nonetheless. This is the power of capitalism.

I'd say profit is the excess of payment received for goods over the total cost of producing them but we're on the same page. I see profit as money that's either re-invested in the business to improve it, invested in some other enterprise, banked, in which case the bank invests it, or spent, giving someone else a profit.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer,
I am against capitalism as a dead-end path that leads ultimately to planet-wide destruction. I'm not in favor of socialism per se, but I see it as an improvement over capitalism. I do favor sanity. In fact I have thought of a society which starts at the current technological level, makes use of its guarantees, but redirects economic (and social) goals.

If you can get everyone to agree with this, that would be fine. Otherwise the only way to accomplish it would be an authoritarian regime. I'm against that.

Quote:
"Even if you're the independent subsistence farmer, the cage isn't under your control." I take it you have not lived in another culture. This culture has conformed itself specifically to support the capitalist economic system, but the strictures go beyond economic. You can't choose certain things in the US, not because they are forbidden or too expensive, but because they don't exist.

I'm not sure what your response has to do with my point that every society has strictures on it.

Quote:
"Capitalist democracies are generally the most technologically advanced countries." Let me refer you again to "Guns, Germs and Steel". Your impressions (they're too formless to be called ideas) are untenable. You don't take into account the military advantage of 1400's western technology, which led to advantage for western cultures in general; and to obliteration, conquest and colonization around the globe. You casually mention the history of colonization without seeming to realize that other countries were ravaged for centuries by the capitalist countries you continue to portray as benign.

Capitalist democracies aren't the most technologically advanced? who is, then?

I'm aware of the history of western arms and conquest, mostly done by monarchies, as I recall.

I'm aware of the evils of colonialism. I didn't think that I'd have to define it every time I used the term. Please quote where I ever pictured colonialism as benign.

Quote:
"But lets look at this overall, instead of picking one country or area. Here's a link to a nice map of life expectancy by country."
This is a crock, and so obvious it's an insult. Don't stoop so low, it doesn't become you.

Insult you? The idea never crossed my mind. Maybe that's beacuse my thoughts are "too formless to be called ideas".

The map is accurate as far as I can tell. why a crock, then? because it doesn't support what you believe?

Quote:
Sub-Saharan Africa has only recently emerged from colonialism. I hope I don't need to enumerate the instability, social destruction, poverty, and lack of development left in the wake. They suffer from many things. But mostly, they suffer not from a lack of capitalism, but from an excess of being on the wrong end.

No argument there. so lets both leave Africa out of the equation as a special case.

Quote:
So it is more meaningful (and honest) to compare two non-western countries similar to each other that differ mainly in their economic system - China and India. They both have massive populations. Until recently they were both rural, uneducated, non-industrial countries. Which has the better lifespan? But if you wonder if genetic or other unknown differences account for China's advantage, Kerala, which is a socialist state IN India far outstrips the whole of India.
Whether or not Russia has achieved capitalism, it certainly is no longer communist. And it was at the death of communism that lifespan dropped. Communism was better than whatever took its place.

OK, then, lets compare two other countries that "Until recently ... were both rural, uneducated, non-industrial countries." Also in the same location. Say South Korea and North Korea. Should I go on with this, or do you see where I'm heading?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:22 PM (P)

My Cliff Note responses! (more this weekend I hope!)

"If there ever could be a "pure" capitalism, this would probably be true, but pure capitalism in a democratic system is as unlikely to exist as pure marxist socialism. Laws against some of the worse elements of capitalism (monoply, environmental damage, minimum wage, right of labor to organize, etc.) are forced by the voting populace."

What you are saying is that democracies offer political feedback into the system, and that societies with feedback can't go too far astray from the welfare of the voting population.

In theory I agree, but in practice I think there are too many OTHER forms of control, each one requires a feedback loop. In addition, the interference of money in the voting process has virtually negated democracy's effectiveness.

"I think that there should be ways to ameliorate these problems within the capitalist system. The Swedish "Middle Way" where taxes on the fruits of a capitalist economy support universal social programs might be worth examining"

Yes, this is one possibility.

"I can't go back in time and resolve the brutality of industrialization, but conditions have improved remarkably for the workers in the industrialized countries you mention. Efforts are underway to improve conditions in countries we export jobs to, but admittedly more could be done."

However, at the expense of jobs in the USA. The problem is that capitalism inevitably creates unemployment and economic polarization- it is an irreducible feature of the way the system works.

"And I tend to believe that the capitalist system supports this better than any other. It provides the incentive (profit)to invest capital in developing advances."

Do you mean "discovering/ inventing" advances or "building/ implementing" advances? The first I would disagree with totally, the second I would disagree with partially.

Most of the major discoveries that I can think of- starting with language, fire, pottery/ weaving, agriculture, alphabet on through the printing press, microbes and the internet were made without the profit motive. The intnert, for example, started with a military project (DARPA)... but you're an IT person so you know this.

If you mean that capitalism is good at IMPLEMENTING discoveries, I agree- but only where there is a significant potential profit involved. Schooling (the implementation of math, language, printing and science), roadways, sewage systems, public health, affordable housing are all significant implementations that have been shunned by capitalism. These services are typically good in socialist nations (or sub-regions, like Kerala) and poor in capitalist countries.

"I'd say profit is the excess of payment received for goods over the total cost of producing them but we're on the same page. I see profit as money that's either re-invested in the business to improve it, invested in some other enterprise, banked, in which case the bank invests it, or spent, giving someone else a profit."

This is where "yes-but" comes in. Profit in capitalism is essentially directed three ways- (1) either reinvested to "improve" business which generally means to reduce labor costs. In the face of reduced demand, profit may also be used to (2) acquire other businesses, which generally leads to a net reduction in competition (monopolism) and (3) speculation, which is really based on the "bigger fool" theory. If you look at (1) and (2) you will see that they concentrate money.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 26, 2004 3:39 PM (P)

I'm going to insert myself into this conversation.

As far as I can tell colonialism worked hand in glove with capitalism. In the case of modern colonial history, it was the extension of capitalism though military and poltical means. So I don't think you can exclude Africa... or India, Latin America, the Phillipines, the Mideast etc. for that matter- as special cases. They ARE part of the capitalist system, just the part that gets the shitty end of the stick.

As part of that, I would look at the USA's 800+ military installations around the world as part of our empire. Our "fight against Communism" was not to make to world safe for democracy (we crushed a number of ths along the way) but to make the world safe for capitalism.

GEEZER

Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My Cliff Note responses! (more this weekend I hope!)

"If there ever could be a "pure" capitalism, this would probably be true, but pure capitalism in a democratic system is as unlikely to exist as pure marxist socialism. Laws against some of the worse elements of capitalism (monoply, environmental damage, minimum wage, right of labor to organize, etc.) are forced by the voting populace."

What you are saying is that democracies offer political feedback into the system, and that societies with feedback can't go too far astray from the welfare of the voting population.

In theory I agree, but in practice I think there are too many OTHER forms of control, each one requires a feedback loop. In addition, the interference of money in the voting process has virtually negated democracy's effectiveness.

Now this is what I'm talkin' about!! Discourse! Sharing Ideas! Woopee!

Yes. Fine-tuning a capitalist system to hit the right balance is going to be complicated, and probably more art than science. I couldn't agree more about the interference of money in the voting process, but limiting money and allowing free speech at the same time is going to be difficult.

Quote:
"I can't go back in time and resolve the brutality of industrialization, but conditions have improved remarkably for the workers in the industrialized countries you mention. Efforts are underway to improve conditions in countries we export jobs to, but admittedly more could be done."

However, at the expense of jobs in the USA. The problem is that capitalism inevitably creates unemployment and economic polarization- it is an irreducible feature of the way the system works.

We are losing manufacturing jobs overseas, due in part to the unregulated conditions of employment there. If governments work together to improve those conditions, and consumers pressure businesses to treat offshore workers fairly, some of the cheap labor appeal will be reduced.

Quote:
"And I tend to believe that the capitalist system supports this better than any other. It provides the incentive (profit)to invest capital in developing advances."

Do you mean "discovering/ inventing" advances or "building/ implementing" advances? The first I would disagree with totally, the second I would disagree with partially.

Most of the major discoveries that I can think of- starting with language, fire, pottery/ weaving, agriculture, alphabet on through the printing press, microbes and the internet were made without the profit motive. The intnert, for example, started with a military project (DARPA)... but you're an IT person so you know this.

I was thinking more of Whitney, Bell, Edison, Ford, the Wright Brothers, etc. These guys were in it to make money, and actively sought investment. I'd suspect that Gutenberg was out to make a buck with the printing press too.

Quote:
If you mean that capitalism is good at IMPLEMENTING discoveries, I agree- but only where there is a significant potential profit involved. Schooling (the implementation of math, language, printing and science), roadways, sewage systems, public health, affordable housing are all significant implementations that have been shunned by capitalism. These services are typically good in socialist nations (or sub-regions, like Kerala) and poor in capitalist countries.

We both might ought'a check out Sweden again. they seem to handle both the capitalist economy and the social services pretty well.

Quote:
"I'd say profit is the excess of payment received for goods over the total cost of producing them but we're on the same page. I see profit as money that's either re-invested in the business to improve it, invested in some other enterprise, banked, in which case the bank invests it, or spent, giving someone else a profit."

This is where "yes-but" comes in. Profit in capitalism is essentially directed three ways- (1) either reinvested to "improve" business which generally means to reduce labor costs. In the face of reduced deman

GEEZER

Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm going to insert myself into this conversation.

As far as I can tell colonialism worked hand in glove with capitalism. In the case of modern colonial history, it was the extension of capitalism though military and poltical means. So I don't think you can exclude Africa... or India, Latin America, the Phillipines, the Mideast etc. for that matter- as special cases. They ARE part of the capitalist system, just the part that gets the shitty end of the stick.

I think I could say with equal correctness that colonialism worked hand in hand with monarchy. Most colonial empires were created during periods of monarchal rule; Spain and Portugal in Central and South America, France in Canada, Indochina, and, with Belgium, chunks of Africa, England just about everywhere else.

Not too many instances of Capitalist Democracies taking and holding previously free countries as colonies. I'll have to check on which, if any.

Quote:
As part of that, I would look at the USA's 800+ military installations around the world as part of our empire. Our "fight against Communism" was not to make to world safe for democracy (we crushed a number of ths along the way) but to make the world safe for capitalism.

Not sure if the English, Germans, South Koreans, Japanese, Turks, Italians, etc. would agree about being part of our "empire". Afganistan and Iraq might feel that way, but I doubt we'll see much benefit from being there.

Parts of the cold war weren't our best moments. but remember that the other side had already collected Eastern Europe and chunks of the Far East by less than savory means. I do tend to think that by making the world safe for democracy, you do make it safe for capitalism, but that democracy (or at least the Western form) was the main thing being "saved".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, August 27, 2004 7:30 AM (P)

”If you can get everyone to agree with this, that would be fine.”
People sign on to various religions. It can be done, though not necessarily by me.

How did this go? You said capitalism was a way for people to put food on the table and improve their lives. That with enough money floating around, anybody should be able to find/make a service job to get some of it. That the miner in Africa was starving b/c the government nationalized the mine and enforced poverty wages. That without capitalists, everyone would be on the dole. That people outside of a capitalist system (subsistence farming) didn't get 100% of the benefits of their labor b/c they had to buy stuff. That the sheer population pressure required massive infrastructure investment that you couldn't imagine coming from anywhere else than capitalism. Also, that capitalist democracies currently provide a higher standard of living for more of their population than any other system. That opting out is an alternative. That even the most economically remote point (subsistence farming) is not under control (I think you mean personal control). And that authoritarian models only work for the authorities, but if they do happen to work for 'the masses' you wouldn't want to live in one.

What I get is: capitalism is essential for human survival in a crowded world, except for the people who manage without; that if not strictly necessary for survival it creates a better standard of living, except in those countries where it doesn't, and that authoritarian models don't work for the masses, except for the times when they do.

One small part of the thread was this:
Some people do 'find' alternatives within a limited range of choices, but people haven't (yet) restructured society to change the choices. It's still about finding a higher perch in the cage, or a more remote perch, or a more comfortable perch, but it's still a perch in the cage, and the cage is not under your control.

“I'm not sure what your response has to do with my point that every society has strictures on it.”

And this does reduce the discussion to meaningless drivel. So, lets plow forward:

There are obvious physical strictures on all societies – potable water, weather, agricultural diseases and pests etc. But they don't make the cage. Even in societies that you (you personally, not the generic ‘you’) would think of as marginal, the physical strictures DON’T drive economic forms. ( http://www.starbuilders.org/fft/articles/fairshare.html) “Initial results come from 15 small-scale societies located in 12 countries that span the globe. Participating groups consist of three hunting-and-foraging societies, six communities that rely primarily on slash-and-burn agriculture, four nomadic-herding groups, and two farm villages. Traditional economic theory assumes that basic human self-interest lies at the heart of commerce. However, a chief discovery of the project, Henrich says, is that nowhere do individuals behave out of pure self-interest. In economic games, members of societies that feature lots of bargaining and bartering gravitate toward dividing available goods equally. Communities in which families are isolated come closest to exhibiting the traditional economic model. 1) Each forest-dwelling Machiguenga family lives in near-isolation and subsists on slash-and-burn farming, hunting, foraging, and fishing. Machiguenga proposers displayed a greater streak of self-interest. Rules for fair behavior with nonfamily members have little chance to flourish among the Machiguenga, according to Henrich. 2) The Hadza hunter-gatherers treat meat and other food as public property if it's brought back to camp and others see it. The Hadza enforce extensive sharing through gossip and outright punishment of cheaters. Hadza proposers made offers almost as low as those of the Machiguenga. In turn, Hadza responders usually turned up their noses at offers. 3) Paraguay's Aché foragers provide an interesting contrast to the Hadza. Aché hunters often leave their killed prey outside of camp to be discovered by others, so a

RUE

Friday, August 27, 2004 8:09 AM (P)

“I'm aware of the history of western arms and conquest, mostly done by monarchies, as I recall.”

I realize you want to leave Africa out of the equation. I don’t. It provides a stellar example of colonialism within the last ~150 years, by countries whose governments varied but whose economies were capitalist. It's strange to me that most African countries are younger than I am.

Ethiopia
Unique among African countries, the ancient Ethiopian monarchy maintained its freedom from colonial rule, one exception being the Italian occupation of 1936-41.

Algeria
In 1815 the United States (democracy) sent a naval squadron against the city (Algiers). The following year an Anglo-Dutch (constitutional monarchies) fleet nearly destroyed its defenses, and in 1830 Algiers was captured by a French (monarchy) army. France annexed Algiers and the surrounding territory in 1834 and began occupying other coastal and inland areas. The settlers developed Algerian agriculture, gearing it to support the French economy. The displaced and deprived Muslim population remained a disadvantaged majority, subject to many restrictions. After a century of rule by France, and in the wake of 1948 elections rigged by French colonists to reverse the sweeping victory of a Muslim political party in 1947, Algerians fought through the 1950s to achieve independence in 1962.
Angola
Angola is one of the few African countries to have been colonized by the Portuguese empire in the 1400's. Angola became independent from Portugal in 1975.
Benin
The territory became a French Colony in 1872. In 1899 Dahomey (present day Benin) was incorporated into French West Africa, with its exact boundaries defined through accords with Britain and Germany, colonizers of the neighboring areas to the east and west, respectively. It achieved independence on 1 August 1960, as the Republic of Benin.
Botswana
The territory was taken under British protection in 1885, after all the principal chiefs complained that Boers, or Afrikaners, from the Transvaal region in what is now northern South Africa, were invading their territories. (The contention between the British and Boers was one part of 'the great game.') Botswana adopted its new name upon independence in 1966. Prospectors discovered diamonds in northern Botswana in the late 1960s. In 2002, 21 million carats of gem-quality diamonds were extracted.
Burkina Faso (formerly Upper Volta)
In 1896 the French set up a protectorate over the kingdom of Ouagadougou, and in 1904 the area became part of the colony of Haut-Sénégal-Niger. In 1919 it was made into a separate constituent territory of French West Africa, only to be divided up in 1932 between the French Sudan and Côte d’Ivoire. It was reconstituted as the separate territory of Upper Volta in 1947. Burkina Faso achieved independence from France in 1960.
Burundi
Austrian explorer Oskar Baumann and German Count Gustav Adolf von Götzen arrived in the 1890s. Later Burundi and Rwanda were incorporated into German East Africa. The indigenous Tutsi rulers maintained good relations with the Germans and later with the Belgians, who occupied the country during World War I (1914-1918). After the war, the area was mandated to Belgium by the League of Nations and became known as the Territory of Ruanda-Urundi. Following World War II (1939-1945), it became a United Nations (UN) trust territory. Burundi independence came in 1962.
Cameroon
British traders and missionaries were especially active in the area after 1845. The Germans and British began to explore inland after 1860, and in 1884 the former established a protectorate over the Douala area; the British, taken by surprise, offered no resistance to their claim. In 1919 one-fifth of the territory, which was contiguous with eastern Nigeria, was assigned to Britain, and the remaining four-fifths were assigned to France as mandates under the League of Nations. Neither area, however, experienced much social or economic progress. It became in

GEEZER

Friday, August 27, 2004 12:57 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
”If you can get everyone to agree with this, that would be fine.”
People sign on to various religions. It can be done, though not necessarily by me.

But they all don't sign on to the same one, even within one country. the only cases of unanimity in religion are where it is imposed by the government.

Quote:
What I get is: capitalism is essential for human survival in a crowded world, except for the people who manage without; that if not strictly necessary for survival it creates a better standard of living, except in those countries where it doesn't, and that authoritarian models don't work for the masses, except for the times when they do.

Not quite what I said. More like this. Capitalist Democracies, especially the ones that have been stable for a while, generally provide a better standard of living for more of their populations than other economic/governmental systems.

Quote:
One small part of the thread was this:
Some people do 'find' alternatives within a limited range of choices, but people haven't (yet) restructured society to change the choices. It's still about finding a higher perch in the cage, or a more remote perch, or a more comfortable perch, but it's still a perch in the cage, and the cage is not under your control.

“I'm not sure what your response has to do with my point that every society has strictures on it.”

And this does reduce the discussion to meaningless drivel. So, lets plow forward:

There are obvious physical strictures on all societies – potable water, weather, agricultural diseases and pests etc. But they don't make the cage. Even in societies that you (you personally, not the generic ‘you’) would think of as marginal, the physical strictures DON’T drive economic forms.

I picked up "Guns, Germs, and Steel" at the library last night, and am just 1/4 through it, but I thought that Mr. Diamond's premise was that physical strictures, (geography, climate, etc.) DID drive economic forms, among other things. Guess I'll hold off on this one until I finish the book.

Quote:
( http://www.starbuilders.org/fft/articles/fairshare.html) “Initial results come from 15 small-scale societies located in 12 countries that span the globe. Participating groups consist of three hunting-and-foraging societies, six communities that rely primarily on slash-and-burn agriculture, four nomadic-herding groups, and two farm villages. Traditional economic theory assumes that basic human self-interest lies at the heart of commerce. However, a chief discovery of the project, Henrich says, is that nowhere do individuals behave out of pure self-interest. In economic games, members of societies that feature lots of bargaining and bartering gravitate toward dividing available goods equally. Communities in which families are isolated come closest to exhibiting the traditional economic model. 1) Each forest-dwelling Machiguenga family lives in near-isolation and subsists on slash-and-burn farming, hunting, foraging, and fishing. Machiguenga proposers displayed a greater streak of self-interest. Rules for fair behavior with nonfamily members have little chance to flourish among the Machiguenga, according to Henrich. 2) The Hadza hunter-gatherers treat meat and other food as public property if it's brought back to camp and others see it. The Hadza enforce extensive sharing through gossip and outright punishment of cheaters. Hadza proposers made offers almost as low as those of the Machiguenga. In turn, Hadza responders usually turned up their noses at offers. 3) Paraguay's Aché foragers provide an interesting contrast to the Hadza. Aché hunters often leave their killed prey outside of camp to be discovered by others, so as to avoid looking boastful. Game then gets distributed equally among all households. In ultimatum games, Aché proposers usually offered either 40 percent or 50 percent of a sizable sum. Many others offered as much as 70 percent. There were no rejected offers. 4) The whale-hunting Lamalera of Indonesia made the most generous

GEEZER

Friday, August 27, 2004 1:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
“I'm aware of the history of western arms and conquest, mostly done by monarchies, as I recall.”

I realize you want to leave Africa out of the equation. I don’t. It provides a stellar example of colonialism within the last ~150 years, by countries whose governments varied but whose economies were capitalist. It's strange to me that most African countries are younger than I am.

Capitalist Democracies. Stable Capitalist Democracies. Actual Democracies, not just where the wealthy landowners got to vote. I have no brief for monarchies, oligarcies, or other forms of authoritarian government. If you're going to attack my ideas (Sorry, impressions. Can't quite get those ideas formed yet), at least know what they are.

Quote:
Algeria
In 1815 the United States (democracy) sent a naval squadron against the city (Algiers).

Yes. To end 30 years of extortion by the Barbary pirates.
Quote:

Angola is one of the few African countries to have been colonized by the Portuguese empire

Empire
Quote:
Benin...became a French Colony in 1872.

Just two years after the fall of the Second Empire. Hardly time for the Third republic to become stable.
Quote:
Botswana...was taken under British protection in 1885, after all the principal chiefs complained that Boers, or Afrikaners, from the Transvaal region in what is now northern South Africa, were invading their territories.

Empire
Quote:
Burkina Faso
In 1896 the French set up a protectorate over the kingdom of Ouagadougou, and in 1904 the area became part of the colony of Haut-Sénégal-Niger.

I'll grant you this one.
Quote:
Burundi
Austrian explorer Oskar Baumann and German Count Gustav Adolf von Götzen arrived in the 1890s.

Empire
Quote:
Cameroon
British traders and missionaries were especially active in the area after 1845. The Germans and British began to explore inland after 1860, and in 1884 the former established a protectorate over the Douala area; the British, taken by surprise, offered no resistance to their claim.

Empires all

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, August 28, 2004 3:43 AM (P)

Geezer,
That was exactly my point. Physical conditions don't drive economies, social strictures and structures *created by people* do.
Hmmm, maybe that's what I need to do so that you will agree with me instead of throwing chaff... Present my case as if it's a weakness, so you step right in.
My next posting on this topic will take a little devious planning.

RUE

Saturday, August 28, 2004 4:07 AM (P)

Quote:
Empires all

1688 is considered the date Britain became a constitutional monarchy.
Now according to you:

Quote:
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.

So, are we or are we not counting constitutional monarchies? If we are then Britain, as a capitalist economy and constitutional monarchy was a colonizer extraordinaire.
But you may on the other hand be engaged in a circular definition: stable capitalist democracies don't colonize, therefore a country which has colonies - is an empire - can't be a stable capitalist democracy.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 28, 2004 6:42 AM (P)

Not being a history buff, I looked up Germany and Austria at about that time (1860s). Both were constitutional monarchies, each with a Parliament.

Quote:
Not sure if the English, Germans, South Koreans, Japanese, Turks, Italians, etc. would agree about being part of our "empire". Afganistan and Iraq might feel that way, but I doubt we'll see much benefit from being there.

Parts of the cold war weren't our best moments. but remember that the other side had already collected Eastern Europe and chunks of the Far East by less than savory means. I do tend to think that by making the world safe for democracy, you do make it safe for capitalism, but that democracy (or at least the Western form) was the main thing being "saved".

You should read "Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. You would find that the Koreans and Okinawans really want USA gone. And of course the Philippines already successfully kicked out out.

South Korea hardly serves as a model for either capitalism OR democracy. Labor unions were forbidden, martial law was frequently applied, South Korean economic development was directed by the government at the behest of a group of oligarchs called chaebols.

www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/
South-Korean-past-part2.html

Japan is similarly non-capitalistic in the sense that like Korea, its development was directed from the top with heavy government intervention.

You also neglected to mention the most obvious parts of our very own empire, starting with the US Protectorates (there are seven) which are not covered by US labor law but do not pay import duties to the USA and serve as sources of very cheap labor,

most of Latin America where we intervened time and time again to destroy popularly-elected governments,

our friends in the Mideast past and present including Iran (Shah), Iraq (Saddam), Saudi Arabia (House of Saud), and Uzbekistan (Karimov)

Indonesia, where Kissinger personally gave Suharto the green light to massacre East Timorese with American-supplied weapons, and last but not least

The Congo (Mobutu) armed and supported by the USA.

Our support of non-democratic (authoritarian) governments has been the exception rather than the rule... and yes, "the people" would really like to see us go away.

BTW- there are two nations in Latin American that score rather well in terms of human development. One of them is Cuba, which manages to provide health care, education, and a modest standard of living for everyone DESPITE being embargoed by the largest and most militarily aggressive nation in the world. The other is Costa Rica, and it is the ONLY nation in Latin America where we have never intervened.

GEEZER

Saturday, August 28, 2004 3:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Empires all

1688 is considered the date Britain became a constitutional monarchy.

But hardly democratic. It wasn't until the Great Reform Act of 1832 that as many as 1 in 5 men had the right to vote. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/hist2.html

and Universal suffrage wasn't until 1928.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Germany and Austria at about that time (1860s). Both were constitutional monarchies, each with a Parliament.

Again, hardly democracies.

"The German Empire--often called the Second Reich to distinguish it from the First Reich, established by Charlemagne in 800--was based on two compromises. The first was between the king of Prussia and the rulers of the other German states, who agreed to accept him as the Kaiser (emperor) of a united Germany, provided they could continue to rule their states largely as they had in the past. The second was the agreement among many segments of German society to accept a unified Germany based on a constitution that combined a powerful authoritarian monarchy with a weak representative body, the Reichstag, elected by universal male suffrage. No one was completely satisfied with the bargain. The Kaiser had to contend with a parliament elected by the people in a secret vote. The people were represented in a parliament having limited control over the Kaiser.

As had been the tradition in Prussia, the Kaiser controlled foreign policy and the army through his handpicked ministers, who formed the government and prepared legislation. The government was headed by a chancellor, also selected by the Kaiser, who served in this post at the Kaiser's pleasure and could be dismissed by him at any time. The Bundesrat (Federal Council) represented Germany's princes. About one-third of its seats were held by Prussians. Conceived as an upper house to the Reichstag, the Bundesrat, like the Reichstag, was required to vote on legislation drawn up by the government before it became law. The Reichstag had no power to draft legislation. In addition, the government's actions were not subject to the Reichstag's approval, and the government was not drawn from the Reichstag, as is ordinarily the case in parliamentary democracies."

http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/history/bl_imperial_germany.ht
m

"Dissatisfaction erupted during the REVOLUTIONS OF 1848, forcing Metternich to resign and the emperor to agree to the election of a constituent assembly, and power was restored to the emperor, now FRANCIS JOSEPH (r. 1848-1916). Austria once more set its course in the direction of centralized, absolutist government, modernized and reformed just enough to make it palatable. "

http://www.dreihacken.asn-graz.ac.at/projekte/usa/history.htm

But I'll admit that this does help me refine my premise. We now have:

A stable capitalist representative democracy with at least universal male suffrage, and preferably universal suffrage, provides the best standard of living for the greatest number of its citizens.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, August 28, 2004 5:36 PM (P)

Just a quick response:
Constitutionally, the number of representatives (but not the vote) was assigned by accounting the number of free persons and 3/5 of everyone else. The president was and is still chosen by the Electoral College, not by direct popular vote. The states did and do decide the electors in 'a manner of their choosing'. (States restricted voting to free landholding males, and that gave rise to later state mischief in denying the vote.) The US had slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which took effect when the north won the Civil war and the 13th ammendment was ratified in 1865. Article 14 (1868) specifically protected the vote of MALES over the age of 21 by providing a representational penalty for states that abridged voting rights. States actively denied former slaves (and 'negroes' in general) the right to vote, so the 15th amendment was created (It reads: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.) So states set up poll /property tax restrictions, which effectively disenfranchised blacks for nearly 100 yrs. The US Supreme Court decided in favor of 'Separate but Equal" Plessy v Ferguson 1896, essentially establishing apartheid in the US. Women did not get the right to vote until 1920. And separate but equal state-mandated apartheid over was overturned only recently as 1954 Brown v Topeka Board. The poll/property tax restriction on black voters wasn't addressed until the 24th amendment of 1964.
In your opinion, when did the United Sates become a democracy?

GEEZER

Sunday, August 29, 2004 10:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In your opinion, when did the United Sates become a democracy?

Good question. When does the number or percentage of citizens eligible to vote reach that "critical mass" that makes a democracy?

Or is it more what they are able to do with the vote? If the population, through their vote, can remove the head of government or change the direction of policy, even though the franchise is limited to less than 1/2 the population, could that be considered a democracy?

Recall that in the former USSR and present day North Korea, everyone could vote, in fact were required to vote. But since their vote could not affect policy or who made it in the slightest, I'd hesitate to call them democracies.

So what's the tipping point that a system crosses that leads it to expand suffrage and the power of the voter and head toward democracy? When do they cross the line and become one?

Looks like time to do some more research, after I finish G,G,& S. Thanks for the impetus. This should be interesting.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:39 AM (P)

Don't forget the electoral college thing. Not only do people not directly vote for the president and vp, they don't indirectly vote for them. They don't vote for the people who will be selecting the executive branch. The electoral college is chosen in arcane and secretive ways, it doesn't have to follow the popular vote, and it's run by rules citizens haven't directly voted on - in other words, it's not under citizen control
A weighting of the popular vote toward less populous states might be beneficial, but the electoral college goes far beyond that. It removes the real power of the vote from citizens. In other words, the popular vote is merely ceremonial. Is that democratic?

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:25 AM (P)

This is a very informative thread. I wish Bush and Kerry would talk and debate like this.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:18 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Don't forget the electoral college thing. Not only do people not directly vote for the president and vp, they don't indirectly vote for them. They don't vote for the people who will be selecting the executive branch. The electoral college is chosen in arcane and secretive ways, it doesn't have to follow the popular vote, and it's run by rules citizens haven't directly voted on - in other words, it's not under citizen control
A weighting of the popular vote toward less populous states might be beneficial, but the electoral college goes far beyond that. It removes the real power of the vote from citizens. In other words, the popular vote is merely ceremonial. Is that democratic?

The Electoral College isn't that secretive or arcane. The Federal Election Commission has a very good paper on the origins, development, current process, and pros and cons of the Electoral College.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

It is the popular vote that selects the electors pledged to a particular candidate from each state, so the vote isn't ceremonial, and "faithless" electors (7 in 200+ years) have never had an actual impact on who won.

Besides, the Electoral college is only used for the election of president. All (or at least the overwhelming majority of) other elections for senators, congressmen, state governors and legislatures, mayors, dog catchers, etc. are direct elections.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:37 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

This is a very informative thread. I wish Bush and Kerry would talk and debate like this.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

If Bush and Kerry debated like this, 99% of viewers would change the channel to Spike TV and watch reruns of 'World's Wildest Police Videos'.

But I'm actually learning a lot just doing research about the conflicting positions. Gets the old brain working.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, September 4, 2004 7:23 PM (P)

Just a general note;

I have not forgotten about the postings I said I would make about the topic "Bush and his administration purposefully lied" to attack Iraq.

I've been involved in a project from hell the last few weeks, taking roughly 12 hours a day, 6 days a week. I expect it to go thru October.

I'll be posting when I can.

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 14, 2006 3:46 PM (P)

In looking for something else, I found a thread started by Geezer in which he claims to be middle of the road.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

JMB9039

Monday, May 15, 2006 3:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
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.

Ah yes, everbody's fault but the president's. I don't buy it. Whatever happend to "the buck stops here." He is the CIC; he is responsible.

Also, I think it is important to determine whether or not a politician lies. If you just let them lie and let them cheat then there is no accountability and they can keep on doing it. Bush keeps calling for accountability from everyone else (even teachers in poor schools) except himself. If we don't hold politicians accountable then the problem will just perpetuate itself - we set a precident that this is all ok.

JMB9039

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 15, 2006 4:01 PM (P)

OOOpps, that's it! Get ready for the whiners sayin' "There Are WMD's, He couldn't have known for sure, It was the best intelligence at the time, It's a war on terrorism/Of course Iraq's not about terrorism, blagh blagh, etc."

Seen it before Chrisisall

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE