Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Winston]

No offense Oncle Boris, but you're raving. I don't have the slightest desire to attempt to prove you wrong. Each new post from you just makes me take one more slow, figurative step towards the door.

[Fake Boris]

I take it that History is about nice people exchanging kisses and flowers?

Just open any history book and read. It will talk about wars and massacres, coups and revolutions, enslavement dirty politics. For hundreds of pages.

Dude, that's not raving!

People in the 30s thought Civilization and technology had brought the end of human barbary. Yet 10 years later we have Auschwitz, 15 years later the gulags and then Pol Pot and Mao Zedung.

[Kidlicious]

Boris II,

Get your own name.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He could be Uncle Kid .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He could be Uncle Kid .

I think he would much rather prefer to be Uncle Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

U.I. - Uninformed Idiot...

I like it .

[Tripledoc]

Ok this article will be right up the rightwingers alley.

Apparently the Bush administration are a bunch of cowards uncapable of seeing, that what Chavez in Venezuela is creating, is a forward base from which terrorists are capable of launching strikes against the US mainland. Of course the reason the coup against Chavez failed was because the traitors of the Democratic party, specifically senator Christopher Dodd (D- Conn.), who has it in for Otto Reich, head honcho of Latin American affairs, were working overtime to make the coup fail. Nice.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10802

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He could be Uncle Kid .

Yes, this thread is reminiscent of the "profit = unfair tax" thread

[Enigma_Nova]

Re: In which JohnT takes a visit to the Twilight Zone...

Originally posted by JohnT
And to think that I believed that Enigma_Nova had a few odd beliefs!

How did I end up as a third party in ad-hominem warfare?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
NOTHING can justify an employer letting 1200 of his workers dying

Value judgement. Anyhow, what about private militias? It's their job to fight stuff and yes they can die.
What do you suggest? The leaders of mercenary bands try to stay away from combat situations?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I don't care what Marx said

Cue sigs

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Really, everything is a conspiracy to you

Nah, conspiracy theories are lies invented by the government and spread by their connection to the mass media. :P

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nah, conspiracy theories are lies invented by the government and spread by their connection to the mass media.

[Ceteram]

Some of you peeps sound like the next wave of reinforcements for groupings reminiscent of the Sicherheitsdienst.

Probably that's because you are shown your big brothers and sisters on FOX every night, eagerly training and now practicing that sort of behaviour right now. Glad they are paying the price for it. I'd have a shot at the invader too, exactly the same way peeps did during nazi occupation.

Resist US military personnel wherever you can. They'll stop showing up: Americans will eventually tear down this or any other warmongering administration themselves.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


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?

Well, here you and I agree. Buying patents for the purpose of maintaining or enhancing one's monopoly could be an antitrust violation. Certainly, it is subject to government regulation and approval just like buying companies in the same business.

[Fake Boris]

You seem to base all of your reasoning on the principle that man is always free.

And when did I say that? Man has free will, but does have constraints put upon him and always has.

Here are some quotes:

Why? They don't have to take the loans, after all. If they want to, then they have to follow the rules with those loans.

You obviously failed to mention that some countries are so strangled that it's loan or die. I don't call this freedom. You also failed to mention that despots surrender economic sovereignty (i.e. direct intervention of another country towards interior regulations) demanded by loan conditions in exchange for human rights laissez-faire.

Would you apply for a job that requires you to work 72 hours a week and give you a 1 out of 10 chance of dying? (1200 out of 12000 Chinese died, says the link you provided).

If the alternative was worse? Sure. Hell, the Chinese got paid much more than they would have back home.

True. It is estimated by historians that up to 60 millions Chinese died of famine in the middle of the 19th century. They would have accepted any job. Their suffering in their home country was such that they were willing to handle TNT without expertise and work insane hours. I call this benefitting from someone's "surviving state" to exploit him.

Yet you claimed a few lines later:

If the conditions are too onerous then people won't apply for work. Obviously the railroads paid very well, because many flocked to that work even though they could have gone into mining, agriculture, etc.

Obviously a starved man will apply for any work regardless of its nature. Look, some people in Auschwitz were willing to act as a police against their fellow detainees in exchange for a loaf of bread.

As as if that's not enough, you persisted:

Of course you once again ignore Adam Smith's article saying Chinese immigrants weren't the only ones hired, but dominated after they showed they were more industrious than white workers. Why would the number of Chinese workers increase after this? Could it be because there were white workers who were laid off for not being productive enough?

False. Chinese workers were hired two and a half years after the beginning of the project. The article does not exactly mention why. I suppose the reason was they could not attract white men enough. It is explicitly told that they were unreliable and left the job after a few weeks. But yet you kept on with this admirable example of philosophical prose:

As for 1200 of his workers dying. The workers made the choice to work in such conditions. It is hard, greuling work where the risks were made known to them. They assumed the risk.

They did assume the risk to the extent that it was better than starvation or pure slavery (in South American mines).

Still need some info on how the indentured Chinese workers were treated? look at this:

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~west/threads/disc-chineselabor.html

Now on to some other of your quotes that made the assumption man was free in any circumstances:

Education is a fundamental right, but you can always opt out of your rights. Why should kids be FORCED to learn if they need to work the farm so their family won't be kicked out of their house?

Yes. And I expect someone to opt out of his right if that is the only way he'll keep his shelter. Is that a truly free choice?
I find it interesting that you ask why we should force kids to learn, while you fail to ask why would someone ever desserve to be kicked out of his house, though. (Of course, I'm not talking about Westerners who can't pay their VISA bills out of stupid shopping, but people who suffered for real from capitalism, such as Russian elders who lost their pension cheque).

Here it is for the freedom thing.

Now to your other quotes:

Vietnam, funding of the Contras against the Sandinists, funding of the coup against Salvador Allende

So ALL this was about economic domination and not fear over an expanding Communist/Socialist threat in the Cold War where you had two sides who generally hostile to each other?

It was about economic domination in that it was necessary to prevent the USSR from getting control of such countries- which would obviously have given them some sort of economical edge.
In the case of Vietnam, it was about destroying the entire country so that people might think twice before engaging in communist guerilla in other places. It was also about funding the militaro-industrial complex. Did you know that more bombs were dropped over Vietnam than all the combined belligerants of WW2 had ever used? That forests in Vietnam are still poisonous because of the products they used to uncover "resisters"? The US had no interest in establishing themselves in the country. They already had bases in Japan, the Philippines and South Korea. The war was long, mainly to ensure total annihilation and huge equipment losses that would result in big cash replacement contracts.
True, the US didn't expect the resistance to be that strong. But in the end it fitted their agenda nicely.

Note that in all cases didn't the USSR nor the US give a damn about the civilians of these countries. It was an imperialistic war waged by two superpowers.

Now let's talk about the war in Iraq. I remember you mocking me (poorly ) with this sentence:

Sorry, this doesn't help in making me think you are less of a conspiracy theorist. Calling Rupert Murdoch to run propaganda in the news

We all remember the greatest and latest "media freedom law", in which restrictions upon ownership of newspapers, radio and TV channels were greatly laxed.
Now back in May, with the destruction of Saddam's statue in Baghdad. We all saw these images on TV. Very nice for the American image of "liberators". Now, pictures of this event taken from other angles have circulated. They show that there were more journalists than Iraqis at the event. The place was surrounded by cameras and soundmen. Doesn't that sound like an orchestrated mediatic event to you? "Scratch my back", says Bush to Murdoch, "I'll scratch yours".

Let's go forward with this one:

On the other hand, many countries have their governments controling the economy. So the US pushes more deregulation so their people can have more economic freedom.

Really? In 1999, only three countries in the world had the government controlling the majority of the GNP: France, Sweden and Denmark. (North Korea obviously doesn't count, and I didn't find reliable statistics for China).

Therefore, SD is any corporation's worst enemy. And this is the agenda of every large company in the world: reduce SD to its minimum.

Bull. Most lefties have no idea at the thought of corporations and you are counted among them.

I didn't know that. Of course, I didn't tell you that my father is a succesfull stockbroker who counts many rich businessmen amongst his friends. What do they talk about around filet mignon and 100$ wine bottles? About how much Unions are a pain in the ass and how they would like to see them banished. About how great it has been to shift productions in China, because workers only get 5% of the pay in Canada. Another one admitted he was planning to move to Mexico after his 200 workers had their Union accredited. They are always whining at how much the SD is an hindrance to their entrepreneurial spirit.

Corporations WANT people to have more money. After all, who would buy the products? It is the height of ignorance to state that corporations want everyone in poverty so they can all submit to the corporation's conditions. Without people buying goods, the owners of the corporation become just as poor as everyone else.

It's great to see that you are contradicting yourself. Corporations are not against SD, because it brings people more money. Yet you claimed that:

And Chavez's social programs did go too far in the government controling the economy.

False. Venezuela public spendings in 2002 were around 20% of the GDP, which is 50% less than the US. How would you mind Venezuela supporting a coup in the US because they feel like you spend too much of your GDP on welfare?
In truth, many economists (even those from the World Bank) believe that a government should increase social spendings during time of crisis. Just like Chavez did. If anyone had wanted Venezuela to be rich, they would have left Chavez alone.

Now to your point:

Corporations do not want people to be rich. They want to sell their products. Now. And they want money NOW. A CEO wants his stock-options NOW. Shareholders want their dividends NOW. They don't care about long-term development. Some isolated industrials understood that long term development would benefit them in the long run. But they were an exception. If it is so widely accepted that Henry Ford paid so well, then it is obviously because the others didn't.

Things have not changed today. There might be, amongst the masses of CEOs, some illuminated moderate leftists who believe in SD. But most of them are looking for the quickest way to increase their profit. And guess what is one of them? Reducing your worker's wage is the most efficient and dratic way to cut on costs. Guess what now? There are millions of starved people in the world who are waiting for a savior to give them 5$ a day instead of 2$.
Since the production transfer is being done gradually, the US does not suffer too much from it. Corporations get to sell at American prices while they produce at third world costs. And since that is bringing profits NOW, they don't see anything wrong with it. They have never given a fvck about people's welfare and never will.

Have you ever seen a corporation commited to Social-Democracy? I haven't. When people suggest increasing the minimal wage, do you see the Wall Street Journal applauding the measure? Do you hear the S&P 500 demanding an increase in corporate tax so that the US could fund large scale humanitarian aid? If welfare is that important, how is it that less than 1% of profits are spent on charity?

In Canada, they passed a new law that allows enterprises to circumvene Union Conventions by allowing for sub-contracting. The corporations are delighted. Trust me, they have no fear that it will impede their growth.

Corporations usually do not mind SD, if they get some of the benefits. They love being the favored company and SD governments like to give monopoly power to their favorites.

And so is these favorites' fondness in donating to their favorites' campaign. Halliburton, Lockheed anyone?
But in fact, the huge majority of the corporations would have the goverment simply end the welfare state. Wealth is here; they don't give a damn as to how it is distributed. As long as it is spent.
Ask the S&P 500 CEOs what they think of Medicare.

They also like the fact that the poor get enough money to eat, shelter, and some left over, so they can spend their cash on the company's products.

Now that it is done, they like it. But don't get me wrong: they never worked for it. To some extent, they had to allow some welfare to protect their own interests. Mere tolerance of a de facto situation is certainly not supporting it.

Remember the 19th century, when strikes were illegal? Yeah, I remember all those Tycoons who were lobbying for the worker's rights. They certainly spent all of their energy towards making sure that they could increase production costs in an altruistic move.

To say that corporations want everyone impoverished is an utterly silly prouncement and too much made by the left.

They want profit. Period. If that comes through empoverishment of the people, then so be it. If that can come through exploiting people who are in a state of dependancy because of extreme misery, they have no problem with it. They sure won't shed a tear. If after 30, 40 or 60 years it appears that a country has become wealthier due to their actions, then it is fine. But don't claim it has ever been their objective.

And what do we have right now? A US government that, instead of defending the necessity of immediate justice and equity, claims that people can wait 30, 50, 100 years for the Free Market to bring them wealth. (They can die from basic diseases and be exploited in the meantime).
A US government that works towards decreasing SD in countries that are not even close to being redistributing the wealth as we are doing it in the Western world. The consequence of this? Corporations, helped by free-trade agreements that are only as free as is the supremacy of US economic power and military persusasion, can benefit from imposing their own rule in countries with too few SD to counterbalance their power.

This, I call Imperialism and Cruelty. And, mind you, I do have some facts to back it up. Why has America been pushing for Latin America to reduce social spendings, even though they are already much lower than in any Western-like welfare state?

You are, Imran, a living oxymoron: "right-wing intellectual".

Good night to all of you.

[Asher]

I welcome your arguments.

...

Zylka: shut up you idiot.

...

[Fake Boris]

holy crap, i'm having trouble with my huge posts!!!

don't read it before it's fixed!!!