Regional Summary  Founded - 30 April 2005 Population - 165 Nations World Ranking - 61 Regional Power - High |
Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate Pidgeon Island Members of the Committee TBA World Assembly Delegate Angusp (aka Bodegraven) High General of the GRADF Joe Bobs |
| Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums! Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register. Join our Community Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system. I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way. Getting Started If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| What is the most apt punishment for being a commie | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 11 2006, 03:08 PM (1,119 Views) | |
| U-ropa | Mar 11 2006, 03:08 PM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
Well. Communists are quite clearly deviants that must be punished in a fitting and particularly medieval way. For being degenerates that are a sore on humanity it is only reasonable to ask: How should we torture the little commie shits? Poll to come! |
 
|
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Comrade Martin | Jul 15 2006, 05:26 AM Post #81 |
Make-Believe Man
  ![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/63/36/0/p14794/pip_r.png)
|
mesatecala1,
You're the least objective person I've ever met, incidentally.
I like how you say things and don't back them up. Communism's achievability is actually immaterial, as Socialism is the only stage we'll probably live to see, and as such it should be focused on primarily.
Ugh... How? Do you know how repetitive you are?
Tell that to the workers in FaSinPat... My "biased dribble" seems to be "fact" anywhere else.
And when has the Free Market ever propelled a people forward without it being at the expense of a much larger base of people? And since when has a free market corresponded to freedoms for the people?
I'll play this game. Nope! Capitalism contradicts democracy!
Socialism abolishes taxation as industrial revenues subsidize what taxes in Capitalism otherwise would. Most Capitalist nations in the world are undemocratic dictatorships. And on an economic perspective, Capitalism is actually a dictatorship as the workers do not have a say while Capitalists - unelected and unremovable - make all decisions.
Actually, economic prosperity only stopped when the economy was decentralized and even more so when privatized. Actual Planned Economics has never failed, and only when revised in negative (I.E. Capitalist ways) has it crumbled. If you'd taken the time to read my posts in this thread, you'd have stumbled upon an excellent book. Found here: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/...land/index.html
Never has, never will.
Profits can go to the people, indeed, as capital surplusses in Socialist enterprises can be used to fund education and hospitals. Hell, even FaSinPat built a medical facility.
So they elect their Capitalists? No. Unions are more like protestors against Capitalists, and they protest when they feel they are dealt with unjustly. Luckily, the state protects their right to do so, but in Fascist Germany for example (the heigth of Capitalism in German history to that point) unions were illegal, so Capitalists had full dictatorial reign.
And you base this on what?
Do you even care about what I have to say? How many damn times do I have to refer to damn Argentenian factories? It's irrelevent what Argentina is, because THOSE FACTORIES are worker-owned!
Both were democratically elected in internationally certified fair elections.
Why are you always so mean to people and accuse them of lying? You're a real dick, you know. All of those states were Capitalist and that is why they had such problems, it was a natural outcome of this economic anarchy of production and economic dictatorship of ownership.
The fact that such leftists got so close is what matters, silly. And Uribe won pretty much since the paramilitaries kill anybody voting left if they find out...
Proof of this decline? And proof that nationalization - and not some other cause - caused problems?
I'm pretty sure Sweden is something like 52% state owned. You could check if you like. And their economic growth rate is not important. Their human development and living conditions are still the highest on the planet.
What?! Do you even know about the 500+ workers-controlled factories I mentioned? Or what about Yugoslavia? They had a similar economic scheme and workers did FANTASTICALLY managing their own businesses JUSt LIKE IN ARGENTINA!
Where's your proof of any of this nonsense?! Just go to Wikipedia and you'll see how right I am!
I'm inflammatory? Check yoself before you wreck yoself! Until you have evidence or facts, I'm surfin onnnnnnnnn! Whoo!
lol, so, do even try to just babble on like this and insult people or is it natural for you?
lol, well, that makes sense. Only a guy who benefits from wage-slavery could really support it, I guess. |
 |
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 15 2006, 05:45 AM Post #82 |
|
Green
|
You want to talk about objectively? First you have to get your own house in order. Please don't be a hypocrite. I really don't like them.
I do not want to live in a dictator-like socialist state. I would oppose such control over my life vehemently. I would die to protect capitalism, the people's economic system.
Do you?
Chile. A great majority of the nation has benefited. Certainly some do not, but no system is perfect. Like no human is perfect. The freer the market, the freer the people typically. It happens to be that every centrally planned economy is under a totalitarian dictatorship.
That won't work. Most capitalist nations in the world are in the OECD.
Yes they do. They are called unions. The upper management has skilled adminstrators.
That source doesn't fly. Economic prosperity only begins with decentralization and this was seen in Chile, Egypt, Spain and certain other countries in Latin America. Planned economics always end up in failure (Soviet Union). You're a history revisionist.
Yep always it will.
There is no such thing as a "socialist enterprise". Any notion of such cannot exist.
Unions work with management for higher pay, that is why management often agrees to a compromise with union demands. You cannot do demand unnecessary wages like some unions do which can bring a company to bankruptcy. If that happens, then everyone would be out of the job.
No. I don't care what you say. And you speak incorrectly about Argentina. Completely incorrectly. There needs to be skilled management or a business will fail. You stooge, I have family members who have been in business. You cannot have workers control the business. You need someone (or perhaps a board) with technical and adminstrative skills to take control of the company.
No they weren't. And Castro certainly wasn't.
I do accuse you of that because you are doing that. You don't know anything about Argentina (which is one of the more capitalist states in South America, and you know little about capitalism). A state can only prosper under appropriate capitalist conditions. The states that fail implement reforms incorrectly.
No it doesn't. Uribe won because he won fair and square. Uribe won because he is popular. Don't you dare speak for Colombia.
Why don't you offer some proof for a change? Some objective proof? Or are you totally hopeless? Aerolineas Argentina was a national company and it suffered under such.
No sources, no truth. Economic growth is important in the long term if you want to maintain current conditions. Short term thinker!
You're lying totally. You need to have technical and adminstrative skills. In fact there are no such factories as you mention in Argentina.
You don't have anything. You're a loose cannon and you can't even get anything right. I'm sorry, but I'm not paying attention to you anymore. You're not capable of rational debate.
Wage-slavery? you're ridiculous. I work for a living just like everyone else, and people like you are not going to come in my life and make things difficult. Luckily you'll never succeed in the US or the OECD for that matter. |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 15 2006, 07:23 AM Post #83 |
|
Green
|
This guy is totally incapable of having a reasonable discussion. He just blocked me on AIM, and said all this nasty stuff to me when I was trying to reason with him. He's so one-sided, and totally incapable of accepting different viewpoints. As far as I'm concerned I'm done talking with him. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 15 2006, 07:37 AM Post #84 |
|
Here, Here! (To Comrade Martin) Ironic, a person who finds things one sided and won't accept anyone else's views. Odd, that sounds vaguely familar :rolleyes:. |
|
|
|
| Hiigar | Jul 15 2006, 08:04 AM Post #85 |
Persistent
|
Stop you are saying that Communism is great? First it is an Utopia, second yes a lot of people will be not happy, the middle class and the Rich and in the end the poor. All must be equal all must be poor. I am middle Class Russian. I don't want to share my things, they are my. I worked for them, my parents worked for them, and etc. The Revolution, destroyed Russia. Yes Russian Empire had a lot of problem. A lot. But Russia was rich, there already was many things that came from U.K., Germeny and other countrys. The Middle Class was already created. And then the communist came. The Country was tottaly destroyed. First religion of Russia, has taken a large hit. Only because when the people wore starving it helped them. And because it was the only real force. Russia had economical, political and social problems. Russia was starving. Even when Soviet Union started the Industrialisation. And well died were the bread came - Ukrain, Povolzie and other. Yes Moscow and other big citys ok, but other no. My Great Granfather died because of Socialist and Communist Giant Caterpillars Batman like you. All wore poor, all wore unhappy only Giant Caterpillars Batman in the goverment, all wore equal. Communism is created for Idiots. It created for lazzy people, poor people. It is created for those who does not want to change, help and etc. Communism will be imposible. All can not be equal. It is imposible. We need Democratical, Capitalist countrys not Socialist, Communist. All Big Countrys like USA, France, UK, Germany and other are Capitalist. Capitalism is yes horrible some times, but if you are lazzy of course it will be horrible. I think that you want for all to be equal. First we can't we are all diffrent, we are big,small, nice,bad, good and evil, African, Americans and etc. So by this thing we can not be equal. Founder of AFA. As I view it, Communism in power may become as much a dictator as anyother political alignment in power if corrupt and, unfortunately in the case of ie. Argentina, has shown a really ugly face in such case. It is a normal idea in my opinion, with its pros and cons. It really depends on people's intentions and "uncorruptibility". Bondostan Communism fails because of the human trait known as greed. Humans like possessing things. Some of us can get above that and share, but not everybody. And well how i said communism is for poor and idiots. Giant Caterpillars Batman - Is S-h-i-t. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jul 15 2006, 01:00 PM Post #86 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
mesatecala1,
The best way to end hypocricy would be, in my opinion, to stop engaging in it. For those avid readers of Naom Chomsky, yes, that is an altered quotation.
Socialism neither desires nor encourages a dictatorship of any individual nor the restriction of the individual's freedom. In fact, we support a democracy that engages both the realms of political and economic life to give better expression to the individual by way of empowerment and introduction in to the functioning of their own lives. We seek to restore dignity and sensibility, rather than rob them of it. Capitalism, by way of centering capital in to fewer hands at the expense of the labor of others, makes such an ideal untenable. Only concepts that can produce adequate profit for an exploiter of sorts will become mainstream, while others are forced out of the limelight. The forces of the market are controlled by the owners, not the consumers. Try walking in to a 7/11 and bartering for a bottle of water.
Ah yes, the installation of a self-proclaimed Fascist dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet by the CIA under the extreme blessing of Richard Nixon. In fact, Nixon called Pinochet one of the best men he ever knew. And of course, we all know how honest and respectable Mr. Nixon was. Quite the compliment to Mr. Pinochet. General Pinochet persecuted thousands upon thousands of people, reverely restricted workers' rights, and made any form of free expression either illegal or expressable only under extreme duress. He was very important for his massive privatization schemes following the murder of elected President Salvador Allende. You picked a fantastic testament to the freedoms bestowed on a people by Capitalism, indeed.
There is no historical evidence to support that the free market naturally equates to increased freedoms, and in fact it is an unusual fact that the world trend in most "free" Capitalist states today is to move back away from civil liberties. You might note in the United States that the Voting Rights Act will most likely not be renewed, giving states the right to jerrymander in any manner they please in spite of poor records of allowing minorities access to polls. Cuba is a fine example of how in spite of a very centrally planned economy, freedoms are very much in abundance. If I knew more about the DPRK, I could likewise provide much information on that nation's status on such things as well. Unfortunately, my information regarding the DPRK is limited (as it is to us all) but many of my colleagues (including Dr. Timothy Beal in New Zealand) have certainly helped me to learn about the very distruthful things regarding the DPRK. On Cuba, however, many of my associates have either been there, lived and worked there, or have family from there. The situation on democratic practices and civil liberties is quite bright, and if you wish, I can provide a good deal of information in citation regarding these matters.
Actually, a small minority of Capitalist nations are in the OECD. Less than 25% of all Capitalist nations, in fact. Nevertheless, what this has to do with taxation I am not sure. Perhaps you can elaborate further.
Workers cannot elect their bosses. Period.
It is not decentralization that we are discussing as the problem but a change in economic planning mechanisms. Prior to 1953, massive economic growth was marked thanks to skilled economic planning principles which placed the needs of the people before the maximization of profit, which spurred economic productivity and improved living conditions in such a manner that the economy boomed forward magnificently. It was a reorganization of those mechanisms that caused Soviet economic stagnation and privatization that caused collapse, as evidenced by the book I linked you to (which had mountains of undeniable economic data proving its thesis).
Any business operated by a workers' state is considered a Socialist enterprise. If you'd like me to define business, Socialist, or enterprise for you I am fully willing to do so.
First of all, unions do not demand ridiculous wages. They understand that if wages are too high losses will occur and everyone will lose their job. They are not stupid. Workers' management in past and present examples proves that workers are capable of effectively and logically managing wages and expenditures in a business in a democratic fashion. Second of all, speaking on that subject, do you believe it is alright for a dictatorship to exist if protestors in that dictatorial nation demand more civil liberties and the dictator grants some? As long as the dictator caves in a little bit, he is justifiable as a dictator? Essentially, by saying that unions (protestors) getting a little bit more money (civil liberties) makes the Capitalist hierarchy (dictatorship) okay, you are saying you might support, say (purely for reasons of example), Saddam Hussein had he given people the right to make jokes about him in public.
Please read about FaSinPat. I'll give you links to be nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaSinPat http://www.fasinpat.com.ar/ http://www.hellocoolworld.com/thetake/gras...FaSinPat_en.htm http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...051122045736683
Scratch my earlier comment about Cuban elections, as I'll provide proof for you now. http://www.cubanlibrariessolidaritygroup.o.../news.asp?ID=94 http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs099.html http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...17/211054.shtml http://www.cuba-solidarity.org.uk/news.asp?ItemID=444 http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/democracy.htm
Did you just tell me that problems occured because "they did it wrong"? I thought Capitalism and the free market worked itself out. You have no more insight than, "they did it wrong"? I know more about Argentina than you, it seems, primarily because you refuse to acknowledge the facts presented before you. Please change your methodology.
His strong connection to paramilitaries and the 'right' drug lords, as well as the many ruthless anti-union forces (union workers are often assasinated in Colombia under the noses of Uribe and co. with no one doing a thing about it) makes the nation democratic? His privatization of hospitals caused widespread shuttings down and a variety of disease-related problems is now occuring. Uribe has showed a disinterest in social programs in a country with rampant poverty and his re-election will only lead him to a strengthening of his autocratic tendencies. Despite the macroeconomic surge, Uribe’s pro-market policies proved to be useless to fight poverty and reduce inequality. http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/06/15/many-wor...de-deal-anyway/ http://www.usleap.org/Colombia/ColombiaHome.html http://henningcenter.berkeley.edu/gateway/colombia.html http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/296/1/ http://ww4report.com/node/2030 http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/30...6/81227-uribe-0
This post is pockmarked with proof. It is your choice to review it or not.
A counter example. In the United Kingdom, British Rail was nationalized sometime following WWII, and was eventually reprivatized. It failed poorly (near-bankruptcy), and was again renationalized (returning it to a productive path) under the name of Network Rail.
Alright, according to wikipedia, 53% of the GDP is attributable to state-owned companies in Sweden. It's Gini coefficient is 0.21, one of the most even distribution of incomes in the world. Economic growth is actually at 3.3%, very good and an improvement from the 1990's. In fact, trade unions have the right to elect two representatives to the board in all Swedish companies with more than 25 employees. Workers are represented, more than half of all enterprise is state-owned, and the nation is one of the most developed and equal in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Economy
Wow... Just... WOW. I wonder if you're even capable of apologizing and admitting being incorrect... http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/Hispan...tories_0804.asp http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/771.html
Why, thank you.
lol, since when was the OECD a place? And yes, wage-slavery. Workers cannot survive without being paid a wage - a fraction of the value they create and which rightfully belongs to them, not to a Capitalist. Until workers have a say in their wages, they are bound to them by the dictates of others.
There's a thing called harassment. I expressed my desires for you to leave me alone, and yet you persisted. I never said mean things to you, but in fact stated that you are a very rude and unkind man yourself. Do not invent conversations; you'll run out of ideas what with all the fact inventing you do. Hiigar,
First, it is not utopian. It is based on very material and realistic principles. A simple search on google can prove that to you. Marxism and the entire approach of Marxists is based on Dialectical Materialism (what we often consider common rational and logical thought coupled with principles by which to scientifically define all matter in motion.) Second, the aim of Socialism is not equalization of wealth. Provided you truly did work for this wealth, it shall remain yours. It is the Capitalits with whom we are concerned, and whose monies are acquired through exploitation, not work. Third, Planned Economics (however much Vanguardism made the process unbearable for some) improved the Russian economy in amazing ways. Indeed, Russia's economy is growing very slow, but it would have been even slower had the Czarist blend of agricultural Feudalism and light industrial Capitalism remained. Do not blindly attack your enemies, research them and attack them at their weak points. This is a tactic for anyone, and can be used by anyone, and indeed should be. I offer this weapon to you not so you may hurt me, but so you may learn that I cannot be hurt.
I very much oppose religious repression, and its quite antithetical to Marxist science. This was undoubtedly a product of the Vanguardist problems I've discussed at length here before (please do review my old work.) Starvation had been a bigger problem under Czarism, and you can't blame Communists for your grandfather's death, particularly Communists subscribing to a very warped view of Communism, or Socialism, rather, Vanguardism.
They were not poor. National income and national wealth increased steadily throughout the history of the U.S.S.R. (yes, even after the Capitalistic reforms in the 50's, 60's and finally in the 80's/90's.) Communism is not created for the idiots, the lazy, or even the poor. It is created for everyone as a natural progression of human development. Capitalism's flaws must be fought and changed for the better. No one is demanding some rigid system as you proclaim we do, but call for people like you and me to get involved actively in a real working class democracy, where the means of production belong to us all, and we are all equals in the eyes of one another. Not in extreme material senses, but in the sense of civil rights and freedoms.
By that logic, blacks and whites should not be equal, men and women should not be equal. We should all be equal in terms of rights and opportunities. Capitalism denies us both forms of equality. Indeed, Capitalism cannot allow democracy to truly work. It serves the rich because only the rich are politicians or buy them. This is well-documented. Democracy in Capitalism is a sham, and that political democracy can only work in the context of an economic democracy, which we call Socialism.
Socialism in the past has relied on such things, and that contributes to its failure. Socialism in the future must be rectified along those lines, and must be representative of our now more advanced and developed understanding of failures and goals. Socialism will rely simply on workers excercizing their democratic rights, and no more. Capitalism relies on exploitation and subservience. I think a comparison should be made.
Greed is socially inspired, not natural to human beings. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766490.stm http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/content/view/92/29/ In closing, I'd like to ask all who post here to at least review what I have said here, and consider my words in objectivity and rationality. Lashing out at me by calling me a liar makes you look bad, not me, for I am evidently very well managing of my emotions. I cannot be dragged in to mudslinging, and will not. I am above it, and I want you to be too. I ask for maturity and understanding. I only hope you find room to concur. |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 15 2006, 08:58 PM Post #87 |
|
Green
|
THEN FOLLOW YOUR OWN ADVICE. Chomsky is a nutcase and an avid anti-American.
You will not impose your arbitrary economic system on me, and you will not restrict my economic freedom. You will not do such a thing, or I will fight you. You do not seek empowerment. You seek imprisonment. Dignity and sensibility? I'm sorry but the only people seeking to restore that are libertarians.
Capitalism has developed large middle classes in OECD controls. I work for a living and I pay for things I want. That is thanks to capitalism. Thanks to capitalism I also have the local mall. Most people are benefited by the capitalist system, but I never claimed it was perfect.
Not once did I defend Pinochet. You are connecting one thing with another. I am defending their economic system, and the fact that Chile has one of the highest soverign bond ratings in South America. Chile also has one of the highest per capita incomes and growth rates in Latin America, as well as one of the most solid banking systems. Certainly I do not agree with most of the methods Pinochet used, in fact I oppose such treatment.
I merely cite the OECD as this fact. The world trend today is to defend civil liberties. You simply cannot accept this. I don't know what your problem is really...
You're so wrong in just about every regard. If Cuba was so free why are political opponents to Fidel Castro regularly jailed and why do people try to flee Cuba every year? People die out in the ocean to leave that regime. You're totally wrong in this regard, and you understand nothing about how the Cuban regime operates. The Fidel Castro regime is like the Batista regime made-over.
Actually no. Most capitalist nations are in the OECD. There are capitalist nations outside the OECD. This simply shows that capitalism helps develop a country and attain levels previously unheard of.
Workers shouldn't be able to.
Are you this economically ignorant? You cannot plan an economy because that would lead to several problems, including supply shortages. Demanding that something be built at a specified amount can also lead to increased inflation. The Soviet economy stalled in the 1970s, and started to decline in the 1980s. The reorganization did not cause economic stagnation, rather it tried to end it. The stagnation was there before the reforms were put in the place.
You are not capable of defining business without being totally biased.
Thanks for restating what I said. But often they can be stupid because they do demand wages that a company simply cannot afford. We see this with the airline business right now. Many of these companies are going through bankruptcy protection and unions are still demanding more benefits.
There needs to be free and fair elections. I do not believe with the president for life nonsense, like what Chavez I fear will do. There needs to be presidental elections every 4 or 6 years (depending on the country).
You're extremely biased. You are making comparsion that are not true. Furthermore, I'm not changing my beliefs for your own convenience. I'm a capitalist and I would die fighting for my beliefs. Let that be known.
Which will end up in a failure in the long term...
Anything credible? For one Cuban elections? There is only one party there, and the opposition is routinely harassed and arrested. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_legisla..._election,_2003 Those elections are about as valid as the elections for Saddam Hussein. They are a sham and a joke. It isn't valid when there is only one candidate for the top job.
They did privatization in the mid 1990s wrongly... but they got their act together, and are attracting more private investment. I happened to live in the country for three years, and personally Buenos Aires is a great capitalist city.
No you don't. You know very little about Argentina. You refuse to acknowledge the facts I gave you. And that is your own fault. You need to change your own methodology, and start using better sources. I lived in Argentina you douche... I typed up papers on the subject numerous times as it is part of my major. There is no way you know more then me on this subject.
Allegations and false ones at that matter. He is making progress in many respects, and the people support him for his efforts. The economic health of the nation is improving, unemployment is declining and people are more able to access services. He is a great man and a great leader against such leftist loons like yourself.
Sometimes social programs need to be cut in favor of reconstruction. Reconstruction leads to long term improvements, while social programs are very short term. And growth needs to continue to reduce poverty. You cannot reduce poverty in just a few years, that greatly. It takes a long term plan and long term growth, which Uribe has implemented.
Counter sources: https://www.economy.com/home/login/ds_proLo...g.asp&cid=22112 http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display....eneerg0.0502283 "In a report released June 27, the IMF said the country's sustained economic recovery has been "better than expected" which has led to continued declines in unemployment and poverty. Urban unemployment fell to 12.2 percent by the end of 2005, compared with about a 16 percent rate from 2000-2002. The IMF says the figures reflect "steady growth in total employment." The poverty rate dropped to 49 percent of the population in 2005, down from about 56 percent from 2000-2002. In addition, income distribution improved, as the poorest 50 percent of the population has earned a growing share of national income, while the share of the wealthiest 20 percent has declined slightly, said the IMF. But it added that income inequality in the country remains high." Nice try really. The situation is improving quite a bit.
I provided counter-proof debunking a lot of what you said.
Improper privatizations really. Some monopolies are required (like in public works). Amtrak is a company that is at risk.
I do want workers being paid a wage (I cite Ford as an example, not the ford of today.. but in the beginning of the company). Paying workers good wages is beneficial for capitalism, and Henry Ford knew this. He paid workers above the market value so they could buy the products of the company. You're not mature enough to talk, nor do you consider other poitns of view. Good day to you. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 15 2006, 10:58 PM Post #88 |
|
Here we have Mr. Right and mature. Mes if you think everyone "isn't mature" enough to have a "conversation" with you, why don't you take yourself elsewhere? Old Folks home, hmm? You can play a nice game of chess and have all the "mature" talk you want. :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
| Love and Honour | Jul 15 2006, 11:56 PM Post #89 |
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
|
Now JW be nice thats just Mes's way. I got awarded the worst debater in GRA (until his next debate that is  )I ware that badge with honour  No one takes him too seriously (I hope :rolleyes: ) |
|
|
|
| Old Zertaxia | Jul 16 2006, 01:09 AM Post #90 |
The Ex-Speaker
|
|
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 16 2006, 01:13 AM Post #91 |
|
silly drunk, I'm always nice :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
| Old Zertaxia | Jul 16 2006, 01:17 AM Post #92 |
|
The Ex-Speaker
|
I would like to second that.... |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 16 2006, 01:23 AM Post #93 |
|
Here, Here! Although, I suppose truth can be seen as "hurtful" to some. <_< Sorry that truth hurts, I heartfully apologize :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
| Comrade Martin | Jul 16 2006, 05:27 AM Post #94 |
|
Make-Believe Man
|
I bet you've never even read Chomsky... You just label him a nutcase and carry on, right? And what do you mean follow my own advice? I'm not a hypocrite!
Libertarians? Anarcho-Capitalists? The people who believe if you get rid of government things will just work themselves out on their own? You guys are probably the most illogical people on the planet! I've read Mises, I know your kind. And the system is not arbitrary, its an improvement of human development and will bring improvement of human life and living standards. We are against imprisonment of anyone unless they willingly attempt to harm others. And economic freedom? The freedom of Capitalists to exploit is no more valid a freedom than the freedom of a slaver to own slaves. It is not a freedom but a restricter of freedoms.
At the expense of the rest of the world, where workers are paid pennies a day in sweatshops to make your Nike shoes and Abercrombie shirts.
What do you do, exactly?
Malls are not exclusive to Capitalism, and are actually rapidly disappearing in modern day Capitalism. Large department stores, or mall-like constructs, will still exist in Socialism for the purposes of retail.
People only benefit in Capitalism in relation to Feudalism, and will only stand to benefit more in Socialism in relation to Capitalism. It's better than Lords and Vassals but not better than workers power.
Yet you criticize me when I examine the Soviet Union under Stalin similarly? In any event, even while Chile experiences such things, also bear in mind the many progressive reforms that took place after his death and yet growth was unhindered by them.
Voting Rights Act, banning flag burning, Patriot Act, NSA wire tapping... Where was the defense of civil liberties, again?
Opponents of Castro aren't jailed. (lol, they got 200 people, and Castro held his own speech and got 200,000 on the same day) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4567393.stm Actually, very few people leave Cuba especially in that "fleeing" form you speak of. http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/am.../cuba/3771.html According to the US Department of Homeland Security, Cuba has gone to the tenth position of countries that have emigrants come to the U.S. by 2003, along with smaller countries such as Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador. Despite that fact, the US Small Business Administration has for years preferred to finance ventures by Cubans over other immigrant minorities.
Evidence?
243 countries in the world... 30 members of the OECD... Take out maybe 10 for Socialist or Socialist oriented nations... You still have 203 Capitalist countries NOT in the OECD. Percentage wise, that means that 13% of Capitalist nations are in the OECD. Furthermore, that means that the other 87% are super-exploited by that 13%, and that only 13% of nations in the world are benefitting from Capitalism, as you put it.
So you openly hate democracy?
But that is NOT what happened in the U.S.S.R. before the reforms in the 50's!
It started to slow down growth in the 60's and officially started stagnating in the 70's, but since economic policy changes did not occur in the 70's and did prior to that (precisely the mid-60's) it is only logical to conclude that it was those reforms! As Stalin put it, on making profit the primary objective of Socialist enterprise, "Totally incorrect.. is the asertion that under our present economic system.. the law of value regulates the 'proportions' of labour distributed among the various branches of production. If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why our light industries, which are most profitable, are not being develped to their utmost, and why preference is given to our heavy industries, which are often less profitable, and sometimes altogether unprofitable. If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why a number of our heavy industry plants which are still unprofitable.. are not closed down, and why new light industry plants, which would certainly be profitable..., are not opened. If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why workers are not transferred from plants that are less profitable, but very necessary to our national economy, to plants which are more profitable -- in accordance with the law of value, which supposedly regulates the 'proportions' of labour distributed among the branches of production." However, profit, rather than usefulness, became the gauge of economic success and the goal of economic planning in the 1960's. "The problem which we now face in determining if profit should be the basic index in judging the work of an enterprise can be attributed in no small way to the lack of regard for the immutable law of economic construction during the Stalin era. This immutable law, regardless of the system under which it operates, is universal; an economy must produce more than is expended on production; and it is this principle, however unheeded it has been in the past, that theoretically provides the foundation for the acceptance of profits today in the Soviet Union". - L. Leontiev: "Pravda" (Truth), July 10th., 1964, in: J.L. Felker: "Soviet Economic Controversies". Cambridge (USA); 1966; p. 77-8
Your statement doesn't make sense. I meant with a dictionary. Are dictionaries biased against you too?
They demand more when their job is more pressing. If they truly couldn't afford it, workers probably wouldn't strike. But even so, you fail to explain how workers' ownership of such a business would be a problem. Then the profit of the business would actually be within their best interests, which now, only milking their bosses for more is in their interests.
So, workers should be able to elect their bosses (since that was the analogy I made)? And Chavez hasn't and won't declare himself president for life... Luckily, Venezuela, much like Cuba, has very regular elections.
You should change your beliefs based on logic and reason. You refuse to listen to me even in the face of mountains of evidence. You pin your hopes on the slimmest of doubts. I made an accurate and logical conclusion and you spat it back in my face. You don't understand what I am doing here at all. I believe all men to be brothers, united in the necessity of Socialism, and I see you as simply outside the family. I am trying to invite you, and it is up to you to accept.
And what do you base this on?
While there is only one legal Party, it is not allowed to field candidates in the elections. All candidates are elected based on their individual issues, not on Party affiliation or marketing and advertising. It is true pluralism and democracy. And no, as shown before, opposition groups are not harassed...
Every candidate has been challenged in their elections, even Castro. This is his sixth term. If a leader does a really good job, and provided a democracy is evident, why should he not be re-elected? With a 97% voter turnout in a nation with voluntary voting, the Cuban people must be ridiculously stupid to keep voting, huh?
Which is why workers are seizing factories for themselves... gotcha'. And how exactly is it possible to do privatization wrong?
Where? And my sources are top notch! BBC and CBS and Wikipedia are all bad to you? And just because you live there doesn't make you an expert, that's pretty obvious. And anybody who can't handle a debate and has to resort to insults (especially childish ones, like "douche") can't possibly be taken very seriously.
In 1999, Colombia faced its most serious economic recession in 60 years, with GDP declining by 4.3% and unemployment rising. The low price of coffee on the world market and the extensive damage inflicted in coffee-producing areas by an earthquake added to Colombia 's economic problems. Although the economy grew by 2.8% in 2000, unemployment reached 19.7%. The number of persons living in poverty increased from 19.7 million in 1997 to 22.7 million in 1999. Between 1995 and 1999, Colombia 's total indebtedness rose from 19.1% to 34% of its GDP. ... [T]he salaries of government employees were frozen and an attempt was made to reduce bureaucracy and noninvestment spending. Although these actions halted the economy's downward trend, no progress was made in solving the problems of unemployment, poverty, or the steadily worsening situation of the most vulnerable sectors of the population. The country's development is seriously hindered by inefficient social expenditures. Spending on education is more than 4% of the GDP, but national coverage is only 88%. Health spending, in turn, was 3.9% of the GDP and the national Gini coefficient of 0.56 remained unchanged between 1997 and 1999[.] ... According to estimates, about 25% of the municipalities fell within the two strata with the highest proportion of unmet basic needs[.] ... Social inequality can also be seen in the negative impact economic liberalization had on the agricultural sector in the 1990s. Some of Colombia 's grains and basic products were not competitive on the world market, and by the end of the decade, 700,000 hm2 of agricultural production had been lost, while planting of illegal crops doubled from 57,500 hm2 in 1994 to 112,000 in 1999. These changes exacerbated the armed conflict and societal deterioration, and contributed to the increase in all forms of violence. The situation is marked by the highest levels of violence in Colombia 's recent history. The Commission on Human Rights calculated that between 1985 and 1999, 1,700,000 persons were displaced due to violence. ... Another major problem is drug trafficking and the high levels of crime associated with it. Colombia has become the world leader in cocaine and heroin production." http://www.paho.org/english/DD/AIS/cp_170.htm Yep, Uribe is doing a GREAT job... If you smuggle heroin or own a factory.
Economic growth does not correspond exactly with a decrease in poverty, and in many instances operates to INCREASE poverty, or more specifically the Gini Coefficient. Social programs are not short term, what ridiculousness. I suppose social security is an inefficient and wrongheaded idea, eh? It's a VERY old and very much unchanged. Why you insist that economic growth cannot be used to fund social programs I don't know. It's a well known fact that that's how it works.
6 vs. 2? And besides, by your own sources poverty is still very high, as are all of the other problems I listed. Some recovery has been made, but in the long term they'll worsen again.
You gave me a grand total of 4 citations. I had given you 20... Not including quotations.
Amtrak is at risk because people drive cars or ride busses instead of using mass train service these days and so it'll probably outlast its less profitable competitors, but still kick the bucket eventually. And how can you POSSIBLY claim to be a Libertarian and then support nationalization and monopolization of public works? That's not how free market philosophies work! And how can you privatize something wrong? Can you give an example?
Yeah, he also hated Jews a lot. And keep in mind how poorly Ford was looked on for what he did by fellow Capitalists. He used his massive profits to buy his workers' loyalty in a time when workers were still quite antagonistic about their wages. In fact, Ford's idea became adopted by many Capitalists in order to keep workers happy. But the recent platform of the Republican Party (the forces of ultra-reaction in the U.S.) stating a desire to abolish mninimum wage laws clearly shows that the days of working with workers is over, and the days of profit maximization are oncoming.
lol, tall words. Btw, I guess you entirely ommitted my mentioning of how WRONG you were on those factories in Argentina. You're incapable of admitting defeat, I guess, but entirely capable of pretending to still be right and omitting instances of your incorrectitude. |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 16 2006, 06:22 PM Post #95 |
|
Green
|
I believe in a minimal central government that is responsible for three things: 1) Infrastructure 2) Justice 3) Defense Keep in mind I am not against government intervention. No, you are the most illogical people. You constantly defy the facts with your own rantings, and you want more government. More government is a faulty idea! I am not an anarchist.
No it isn't. Socialism is a step back for humanity, and will bring down human living conditions. I will fight against any attempt to impose such a system in this country. Even if that fight involves me using force.
Capitalism is not about slaves. It is about economic enterprise and freedom for all. Those who excell are rewarded.
I meant to say countries. But I guess I was typing so fast to your illogicalities I made a few typos. Those workers in the developing world are actually being paid more then they would get paid in traditional agriculture jobs. Like it or not, those "sweatshop" jobs are actually empowering women to move in cities, have less children and leave the small towns. You may view it as a sweatshop job, and I did... until my urban development 350 professor (who was actually towards to left) convinced me otherwise. He layed out the case to me and told me we only view these jobs are sweatshop jobs because our living standards are different. A dollar in Bangladesh can buy a lot more then a dollar here. Someone who makes $40,000 annually in Bangladesh can be viewed as someone in one of the upper income tax brackets.
At the time I'm a student, but I have worked in my campus's library during the semester (making around ~$9/hr).
Not really. Malls are propping up all over this country (and I speak to this in California, where malls are cropping up at an exponential pace). Socialism is against malls and any form of department stores. Socialism is a disease and needs to be faught against, with violence if necessary.
Capitalism is better then Socialism, and capitalism benefits more people then socialism. Capitalism is not feudalism, nor is capitalism a slave state.
At no point in my mind was the Soviet Union ever stable economically. It was going to decline because it was based on faulty plans, and a lack of long term planning. Stalin did not have long term planning in mind. He also caused the death of millions. So really, Pinochet is a teddy bear compared to that guy, and your favorite little buddy, Mao. There were actually very few progressive reforms after Pinochet. The adminstration after him, and the so called socialist adminstration of Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachelet both vigorously persue capitalist reform and investment. The same goes for the Socialist PSOE President Felipe Gonzalez... though he was in the socialist party in Spain he initiated the bulk of capitalist free market reform. The PSOE is not a socialist party in Spain, and nor is the Socialist Party in Chile. The real leftist party, the communist party in Chile has failed to win any seats in 2005. A real indicator that Chile is not a left wing country!
Flag burning wasn't banned. It failed by one or two votes. Either way, I never said this country was perfect. Obviously the inability for their to be gay marriage is a major pitfall in this country. But alas, in 2008 there is going to be a new face that will come into office that we can vote on.
Many of those people who attend Castro's speechs are civil servants who are paid to do it. If Castro is so popular why do so many thousands leave?
People leave in mass whenever Cuba opens its ports (1980 is an example of this). This clearly shows the Cuban people are not happy with the corrupt dictatorship of Fidel Castro. I'm really happy that Fidel's brother is a half wit, so that the communist state will not be around for much longer after Castro dies.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba-immigration-2.htm
I'm talking about places where the capitalist system is used appropriately. Remember anyone can abuse a system. I'm talking about places that have infrastructure and justice. Many of those countries in that 243 do not have good infrastructure or a good justice system, therefore do not qualify.
Read my statement above. You think in black and white terms. Many of those countries are not capitalist because they lack a system that allows for private investment. If you do not have good infrastructure or a good justice system, then you don't qualify. The Democratic Republic of Congo is an example of this.
Electing leaders to the government is what democracy is about, not to businesses. That's a half wit idea.
WRONG! IT IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SOVIET ECONOMY LATER BECAUSE THE SYSTEM REALLY NEVER WORKED.
The Leonid Brezhnev regime returned to the Stalinist ideas implemented before, erasing the policy changes under Kruschev (sp).
Stalin was a murderer, and a bigger murderer then Pinochet. Why are you defending him, hypocrite? He is totally wrong with his economic ideas. A system cannot survive without profit.
As it always should have been. And how useful is a business that is bankrupt?
They should understand the health of the company they work for is under severe stress, especially with higher petroleum prices. Workers ownership of such a businesses would lead to immediate or eventual bankruptcy, as workers cannot competently own a business collectively in the long term. You need adminstrative skills.
No. Workers should not be able to elect CEOs of companies. And if Chavez won't it will be a big surprise to me. Hopefully he'll be gone in the next presidental elections for the disgrace he is. And Cuba doesn't have valid elections, nice try.
You are the one who should change your own beliefs based on logic and reason, which lay on my side. I presented counter evidence. You are the one who refues to listen to my evidence and my case, even when the evidence I have constantly grows. You cannot and you are not capable of making a logical conclusion. Your beliefs prevent you in thinking clearly and have clearly muddled your mind, not allowing you the ability to think objectively. I am an objective thinker. You are not. I will fight against socialism with force if it ever happens. I will use violence because I feel my personal liberties are being enroached upon. I have a right to my life. I have a right to shop where I please (including Abercrombie, where I currently work). You have no right to come into my life and turn things upside down. Only the IRS can do that if I don't pay my taxes (and I do believe me).
No it isn't. This is not pluralism or democracy at all. In fact I can easily say a country that prohibits other political parties is not democratic at all.
With the evidence I showed they do.
The election was not voluntary. You cannot believe everything the Castro regime says. As far as I'm concerned the elections are a sham, just like your beliefs. You are gulliable and easy to impress apparently. Why did you believe such a lie? I'm talking about your beliefs in general... who brainwashed you?
They cannot because they do not have the adminstrative skills.
To do it the way Carlos Menem did, who I actually hate. You're so supposed to privatize parts of a public company at first, not all at once. That can cause structural problems. You are supposed to restructure a company before privatizing it.
Wikipedia isn't actually top notch, but I won't say anything because I use it too (but NEVER ON ANY PAPERS). I wrote several papers on the policies implemented by the De La Rua adminstration (disaster) and the Duhalde adminstration. The current President Kirchner is obviously persueing foreign investment. I'm really sorry for using that word. I'm just getting very frustrated. I'm sure you know the feeling. http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2005_..._transcript.htm http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/argentina-we...s-20050127.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/internat...&pagewanted=all The country has vigorously persued foreign investment.
WRONG SOURCE WRONG INFORMATION. I already posted something that directly disputes this. And Uribe has been in power since 2002, not 1999. I was in Colombia in 1999 and thought it was a failed state. Andres Pastrana was the president then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_Uribe The Uribe administration has continued dealing with the IMF and the World Bank, securing loans, agreeing to cut expenses, agreeing to continue debt payments, privatize public companies and foment investor confidence, in order to comply with financial orthodoxy. These measures have been successful in reducing inflation and the size of the state's deficit, according to the government and analysts from the previously mentioned international organizations. The government's High Advisor for Social Policy, Juan Lozano, presented in February 2005 some of the administration's socio-economic statistics: an increase of 5 million affiliates to the subsidized health system (3.5 million made in 2004, for a total of 15.4 affiliates), an increase of 2 million Colombians that receive meals and care through the Institute of Family Welfare (ICBF) (for a total of 6.6 million in 2004), an increase of 1.7 million education slots in the National Service of Learning (SENA) (for a total of 2.7 million in 2004), an increase of 157% in the amount of microcredits available to small entrepreneurs, a reduction of unemployment from 15.6% in December 2002 to 12.1% by December 2004, the addition of almost 200.000 new houses to existing housing projects for the poor, a total of 750.000 new school slots in primary and high school, some 260.000 new university slots, the return of 70.000 displaced persons to their homes (under an 800% increase in the budget assigned to this matter), and support for program that seeks to increase economic subsidies from 170.000 to 570.000 of the elderly by the end of the term. The High Advisor added that a "colossal effort" is still required and that work must continue, and that this progress would constitute a sign of the Uribe administration's positive effects on social indicators. [22] [23] Companies such as Carbocol, Telecom, Bancafé, Minercol and others, which were either already in crisis or considered by the government as overly expensive to maintain under their current spending conditions, were among those restructured or privatized. Uribe's administration has been considered as neoliberal by most direct critics, which argue that it has not addressed the root causes of poverty and unemployment, because continued application of traditional trade and tax policies tend to benefit private and foreign investors over small owners and workers. It is claimed by union and labor groups that many of the privatizations and liquidations have been done to please the IMF, the World Bank and multinational companies, and would end up hurting several national industries in the long run.[24] Supporters of Uribe counter these claims by pointing to the rising per capita GDP, fast and sustainable economic growth, low inflation, rising wages, lower public debt, lower unemployment and increased social expenditures of Uribe's government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Colombia Economy - overview: Colombia's economy has been on a recovery trend during the past two years despite a serious armed conflict. The economy continues to improve thanks to austere government budgets, focused efforts to reduce public debt levels, an export-oriented growth strategy, and an improved security situation in the country. Ongoing economic problems facing President URIBE range from reforming the pension system to reducing high unemployment. New exploration is needed to offset declining oil production. On the positive side, several international financial institutions have praised the economic reforms introduced by URIBE, which succeeded in reducing the public-sector deficit below 1.5% of GDP. The government's economic policy and democratic security strategy have engendered a growing sense of confidence in the economy, particularly within the business sector. Coffee prices have recovered from previous lows as the Colombian coffee industry pursues greater market shares in developed countries such as the United States. GDP (purchasing power parity): $337.5 billion (2005 est.) GDP (official exchange rate): $97.73 billion (2005 est.) GDP - real growth rate: 5.1% (2005 est.) GDP - per capita (PPP): $7,900 (2005 est.) GDP - composition by sector: agriculture: 11.9% industry: 50.4% services: 37.7% (2005 est.) Labor force: 20.52 million (2005) Labor force - by occupation: agriculture: 22.7% industry: 18.7% services: 58.5% (2000 est.) Unemployment rate: 10.2% (2005) --- Unemployment has fallen from over 20% in 2000 to just over 10% in 2005. And he obviously has increased security: "According to official government statistical information from August 2004, in two years, homicides, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks in Colombia decreased by as much as 50% - their lowest levels in almost twenty years. In 2003, there were 7,000 fewer homicides than in 2002 - a decrease of 27%. By April 2004, the government had established a permanent police or military presence in every Colombian municipality for the first time in decades. [12] The Colombian Embassy in Washington states that, as a result of this policy, the Colombian armed forces would now have: "60% more combat ready soldiers than four years ago; Helicopters which have significantly improved the mobility of Armed Forces throughout the national territory; Attack helicopters ensuring means to be more aggressive in the fight against FARC and AUC; Increased basic combat supplies, including rifles and ammunition; and [has received] significant less human rights complaints against them." [13]"
You've been outsourced again. And heroin and cocaine production in Colombia is down, thus contradicting your source once again. Sources: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050901-114111-6726r.htm Coca cultivation in Colombia has declined for a third consecutive year, reducing production of the prime ingredient in cocaine by more than a third since 2001, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) reports. The coca crop peaked in 2001 with more than 422,000 acres under cultivation, and this was reduced to 200,000 acres last year, the White House says. Both the White House and a report by the United Nations in June said coca production in Colombia -- the biggest cultivator of the narcotic substance in South America -- fell 7 percent in 2004 compared with the year before. http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press05/032505.html "Finally, the estimate shows that Colombian opium poppy cultivation fell 52 percent between 2003 and 2004. The estimated 4,400 hectares of opium poppy for 2003 decreased steeply to 2,100 hectares for 2004. There were an estimated 3.8 metric tons of potential heroin production in 2004 (down from 7.8 metric tons for 2003). More than 4,000 hectares of opium poppy were treated with herbicide in 2004 or manually eradicated." Nice try.
Economic growth in Colombia has pulled the unemployment rate down from 19% to 10%, respectively. It has reduced the poverty rate by a modest amount. There needs to be more work done, but we all know Uribe had to set up a security blanket in Colombia that was stable. Social programs had to be cut back for a bit, so the Colombian Armed Forces could successfully take control of the country. However, as the source I demonstrated above, it clearly shows Uribe has a consideration for the poor, of who elected him to office. Right now the economic growth needs to be funding the military and infrastructure for the most part, and some of the rest can fund the social programs. Colombia has a great potential of being a huge manufacturing state, and has the educated populace to do it.
I do admit poverty is very high. But give the man more time. You cannot get huge results in just a few years, especially with how long Colombia has been at war within. And my sources are a lot more credible then most of those you stated. In the long term, things will only get better. It won't worsen again. Please be logical, not dumb.
You gave a lot from far left wing websites. Those do not qualify as sources. I provided quality sources.
You really don't know what libertarianism is. There are different "shades" of libertarianism and how extreme one can get. I'm a very moderate thinker. I'm not for the privatization of everything, but I'd like to see an economy be backed by a great effective private setor.
Back to my old example of Aerolineas Argentina. A company that privatized incorrectly. The company was sold as is, and was not restructured before privatization. If you do not restructure, you'll have a big mess. Aerolineas Argentina was facing serious bankruptcy because it could not pay the large set of workers it had. I would of proposed breaking Aerolineas Argentina into two or even three seperate companies. In my mind, the only thing that matters is efficency. But hey, my family has a long line of business owners... so hate me if you must.
I'm not saying he didn't. And no, I don't respect that. As you know I'm very pro-Zionist.
I'm not for the abolishment of the minimum wage and I do not agree with the Republican party a lot. I do not agree with the democrats either. Profit maximization is always an important thing, but it needs to be established by paying workers plenty so they can buy the company's products.
I'm not wrong on anything about that. Workers cannot own a factory and manage it effectively. It will die out soon. I would never admit defeat against such an immature set of views. I provided you with quality sources and you are totally incapable of accepting the reality. In other words, I think you're intellectually dishonest and a hypocrite.
I believe in a minimal central government that is responsible for three things: 1) Infrastructure 2) Justice 3) Defense Keep in mind I am not against government intervention. No, you are the most illogical people. You constantly defy the facts with your own rantings, and you want more government. More government is a faulty idea! I am not an anarchist.
No it isn't. Socialism is a step back for humanity, and will bring down human living conditions. I will fight against any attempt to impose such a system in this country. Even if that fight involves me using force.
Capitalism is not about slaves. It is about economic enterprise and freedom for all. Those who excell are rewarded.
I meant to say countries. But I guess I was typing so fast to your illogicalities I made a few typos. Those workers in the developing world are actually being paid more then they would get paid in traditional agriculture jobs. Like it or not, those "sweatshop" jobs are actually empowering women to move in cities, have less children and leave the small towns. You may view it as a sweatshop job, and I did... until my urban development 350 professor (who was actually towards to left) convinced me otherwise. He layed out the case to me and told me we only view these jobs are sweatshop jobs because our living standards are different. A dollar in Bangladesh can buy a lot more then a dollar here. Someone who makes $40,000 annually in Bangladesh can be viewed as someone in one of the upper income tax brackets.
At the time I'm a student, but I have worked in my campus's library during the semester (making around ~$9/hr).
Not really. Malls are propping up all over this country (and I speak to this in California, where malls are cropping up at an exponential pace). Socialism is against malls and any form of department stores. Socialism is a disease and needs to be faught against, with violence if necessary.
Capitalism is better then Socialism, and capitalism benefits more people then socialism. Capitalism is not feudalism, nor is capitalism a slave state.
At no point in my mind was the Soviet Union ever stable economically. It was going to decline because it was based on faulty plans, and a lack of long term planning. Stalin did not have long term planning in mind. He also caused the death of millions. So really, Pinochet is a teddy bear compared to that guy, and your favorite little buddy, Mao. There were actually very few progressive reforms after Pinochet. The adminstration after him, and the so called socialist adminstration of Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachelet both vigorously persue capitalist reform and investment. The same goes for the Socialist PSOE President Felipe Gonzalez... though he was in the socialist party in Spain he initiated the bulk of capitalist free market reform. The PSOE is not a socialist party in Spain, and nor is the Socialist Party in Chile. The real leftist party, the communist party in Chile has failed to win any seats in 2005. A real indicator that Chile is not a left wing country!
Flag burning wasn't banned. It failed by one or two votes. Either way, I never said this country was perfect. Obviously the inability for their to be gay marriage is a major pitfall in this country. But alas, in 2008 there is going to be a new face that will come into office that we can vote on.
Many of those people who attend Castro's speechs are civil servants who are paid to do it. If Castro is so popular why do so many thousands leave?
People leave in mass whenever Cuba opens its ports (1980 is an example of this). This clearly shows the Cuban people are not happy with the corrupt dictatorship of Fidel Castro. I'm really happy that Fidel's brother is a half wit, so that the communist state will not be around for much longer after Castro dies.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba-immigration-2.htm
|
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 16 2006, 10:54 PM Post #96 |
|
My we have some long-winded people here, don't we? :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 16 2006, 11:08 PM Post #97 |
|
Green
|
I'm sorry, my post did not close the quotations again... it looks like a mess. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 17 2006, 03:07 AM Post #98 |
|
That's because it is [^QUOTE^][/^QUOTE^] not lower case. (^ was added to disable the code) |
|
|
|
| mesatecala1 | Jul 17 2006, 03:52 AM Post #99 |
|
Green
|
Whoops.. it should work both ways.. i'll fix it then. |
|
|
|
| Jonewest | Jul 17 2006, 04:12 AM Post #100 |
|
maybe [*QUOTE=Person][/QUOTE*] will work |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic » |
5:53 PM Jul 13