Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


I won't be a bore and ask for proof of that, but are you sure that competition in itself creates new products, and not only cheaper products. Also if competition is such a wondercure, why do you have agencies sucking up patents left and right, specifically to ensure that there is no competion. For instance true competition in the medical industry would quite simply kill it off very quickly, as the money requied to research, secure, and market new medicines is now so great that only monopolies and strict patent laws will make any profit possible. Just see the debacle over cheap anti-HIV drugs to the Third World, where after all, they are most needed.

The laws of the free market don't work there.

Patents are part and parcel of fair competition. If there were no patents, there would be far less research into new products because as soon as they were invented the competition would simply begin to produce them without the associated R&D investment.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A little precision TO EVERYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS THREAD

In all of my posts, I never meant "socialism" as an "economic system where the means of production are publicly owned".

Then you don't know what socialism is nor how it differs from communism. There are several different variations but always a communist government is a government where all means of production & business are government owned while a socialist government is a government where the primary means of production (like large automakers or other major industrial enterprises) are government owned but minor or no strategic means of production are privately owned.

Like I said there are various different flavors but those descriptions are always true about either form of government.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Both are editorials. They are trying to link some support by the CIA in the past with the coup. Claiming that Chile's coup had anything to do with this one and both defame Otto Reich. Not to mention one of those editorials are from the Observer... tabloids normally should not be trusted for news.

Well Otto Reich should take them to court then.

It is just that I am prone to actually believing this, since the history of US involvement in the internal affairs of Latin America is a bit spotty.

I think that if the coup had actually succeded the Bush team would have made no secret that they were behind it. After all both Sixty minutes and New York Times had made it look as if Chavez was a raving lunatic. Also mr Chavez had publicly accused the US army in Afganistan of being 'child killers' which you might imagine would have hurt some feelings.

Also what was the 'US coastguard' doing in Venezuelan waters during the coup? Why was there not an immediate condemnation by Washington of the unconstitutional coup? It was only when it failed that the coup was condemned. And why is that every time there is a coup or countercoup that goes against the American interest the perpetrators flee to the US? For instance the couped Bolivian president did that just a few months ago.

But maybe that is all propaganda. Nevertheless it is working, because as I've heard on the news Anti-Americanism in Latin America is currently at an all time high. Even those who believed that America was a neccesary presence to fight communism, have now come to question the true motives, since as you know thre is no communism in Latin America to speak of, yet the Us still is exerting pressure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well Otto Reich should take them to court then.

A public figure can only win on defamation if the writing was intentionaly malicious.

Why was there not an immediate condemnation by Washington of the unconstitutional coup?

Because what would have happened if the coup ended up surviving? You really want to piss off the potential government by calling them illegitimate? Saying they are wrong on policy is one thing. Saying they shouldn't be in power is another thing altogether.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Patents are part and parcel of fair competition. If there were no patents, there would be far less research into new products because as soon as they were invented the competition would simply begin to produce them without the associated R&D investment.

Yes, but having companies actually buying up patents, in order to prevent competition is not very helpful. Even patents of products which can not be lined by that company, except at some time in the future. And how can one be absolutely sure that when a company holds monopoly over a product the price is an actual reflection of the time and resources gone into reseach and development, and that no jump in the price has occured, which derives from the very fact of monopolization?

[JohnT]

One thing about the fanatical left...

1. They like to redefine terms in the middle of the debate.

2. They love to cite opinion pieces as evidence.

Well, 2 things I guess...

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by JohnT
One thing about the fanatical left...

....

2. They love to cite opinion pieces as evidence.

Well, 2 things I gues...

This was not presented as evidence, but as background information, which i proposed for a critique. As stated the evidence is classified.

One thing about the fanatical right. They like to lie and misrepresent facts.

[JohnT]

Well, it happens here all the time. You're just continuing a four year trend, Triple.

[Fake Boris]

Yes, yes I do . I'm saying equating Social-Democracy to Socialism is a fallacy and any true socialist would kick you kick the balls for that. I don't care if some uninformed people think SD = socialism, that ain't it.

I am not talking Politics here. I am at the level of goddam LINGUISTICS.

I am saying that a word does not have the same meaning in America as in other parts of the world. No one ever claims that SD=socialism. They don't even claim anything. It is I, in fact, who is informing you of something you don't seem to be aware of: that the word they use to describe what you call SD is socialism, and the word they use to describe what you call socialism is more like Communism. (Yes, this phrasing has a slight disadvantage: "Communism" as defined by Marx doesn't get its word. But the semantic tradition is here, and there's not much that can be done about it).
In no way is there a difference between the definitions. Only the terms are different.
I fail to see any intelligent reasoning behind your point. These guys are not uninformed: they are only using different words to describe the same reality.

I remember being ridiculized by JohnT because I didn't understand correctly the world "liberal" in US tradition. I doubt you've shown any intent other than mocking me by insisting so much on a case this obvious. The more you speak, the more I am subjugated by your sarcastic genius.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that the word they use to describe what you call SD is socialism, and the word they use to describe what you call socialism is more like Communism.

Yeah, I know that... it's incorrect however. True socialists, even in Europe would totally blanch at being lumped in with the likes of Schroeder. Rosa Luxembourg and Raffarin don't belong in the same sentance with each other.

[Fake Boris]

Yeah, I know that... it's incorrect however. True socialists, even in Europe would totally blanch at being lumped in with the likes of Schroeder. Rosa Luxembourg and Raffarin don't belong in the same sentance with each other.

I would point out that even the USSR called itself Communism. And they have never claimed to be the end of history.

True SDs would blanch at being lumped in with the likes of Lenin and Honecker.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Rosa Luxembourg and Raffarin don't belong in the same sentance with each other.

Raffarin is a moderate liberal free marketeer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1970512.stm

Or maybe I just don't get this discussion at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would point out that even the USSR called itself Communism. And they have never claimed to be the end of history.

True SDs would blanch at being lumped in with the likes of Lenin and Honecker.

And how many times have you heard the (true) mantra that the Soviet Union wasn't "true communism"?

Why would SDs be lumped in with Lenin? Lenin is a socialist or 'command communist', not a center-left democratic party.

[Fake Boris]

And how many times have you heard the (true) mantra that the Soviet Union wasn't "true communism"?

I'm not an USSR expert, but personally I've not seen much of Marx dialectics being used in propaganda. Not in any way that would render homage to the man's brilliance.

Why would SDs be lumped in with Lenin? Lenin is a socialist or 'command communist', not a center-left democratic party.

I don't know why they would. As for yourself, why should Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg be lumped with the SDs anyway?
I was kinda... mocking you...

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for yourself, why should Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg be lumped with the SDs anyway?

If SDs are socialist then they'd have to be lumped with Luxembourg, who actually are socialists... duh .

I was kinda... mocking you...

Poorly.