Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[JohnT]

Of course, I didn't tell you that my father is a succesfull stockbroker who counts many rich businessmen amongst his friends.

"What Daddy did" is not experience nor knowledge, my friend.

[Lonestar]

me wonders what Oncle Borise thinks of his "MIddle-class rebuilding Iraq" thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JohnT


Naw, in that one the arguments were at least intelligible and there were clear battle lines drawn. This one is shaping up into a "let's pile on OB and TripleSec regardless of your political affiliation" thread.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

You have a much higher opinion of Kidicious' posts that I do

[Mazarin]

Originally posted by JohnT

"What Daddy did" is not experience nor knowledge, my friend.

*insert obvious Bush joke here*

...sorry, just couldn't resist

[Q Classic]

Mao Zedung.

well, that's one thing oncle's got right.

[Q Classic]

Why is it that a Chinese desserve 1/12th of the salary of an American worker?

'cause there are so many of them, and they only come up to your knee?

[Q Classic]

Marx would roll over in his grave if France was considered a socialist country.

well, to be fair, marx has been spinning in his grave ever since the october revolution.

The left, as you and I both noted earlier, live in conspiracy-land.

tsk, too broad of a brush.

We can only laugh at the oligarchs' ludicrous hypocrisy when they claim that the free market is improving the poor's condition while they are filling their own pockets with millions.

actually, it did. in every case of the industrial revolution, there was a long period of ****ty life for the poor, but then the riches started trickling down. thus, while americans once had to be in sweatshops, now the poor just have to make babies.

SWEDEN, CANADA, FRANCE, JAPAN, GERMANY, US, SWITZERLAND. DO YOU FIND A LINK BETWEEN THEM? YUP, THEY ARE ALL WELFARE STATES.

actually, japan isn't much of a welfare state compared to those. when you compare it to, say, india, or uzbekistan, yes, but.

I'd rather judge the man from what his mediatic empire does rather than what he says.

ted's a lefty, but at least he's from the south.
btw: most rightists in america despise the un. ted gave 1 billion to it.
most here are under the persuasion that cnn is a liberal media outlet.

And to think that I believed that Enigma_Nova had a few odd beliefs!

he does.

I agree that telecom deregulation has led to worse quality and higher prices.

until the early-nineties, korea had only one nationalized telecom company: korea telecom. when they deregulated the industry, korea saw a huge blossoming of telecommunications: phone use skyrocketed, mobile use became big, rates fell drastically, and investment in telecom infrastructure rose.
before, korea had a third-world telecom grid. now, korea has a first-world grid, the highest rate of broadband internet penetration at a low cost (1.5mbit (really that fast, not the dorky 300k avg when 1.5 is advertised in the states) for ~us$25/mo), and one of the highest rates of mobile usage--with mobiles (samsung, lg) at least a generation and a half ahead of america and on par with finland (nokia) and japan (ntt docomo).
i guess deregulation really did lead to worse service and higher prices.

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

well, some kinda did. and they did follow the rules. but it wasn't until skorea paid it all back and shucked the rules off that it recovered.

By the way, did you know that South Korea enacted some laws to forbid new worker unions in 1997 as a reaction to the economic crisis in Asia?They gave the police the right to arrest unions leaders without mandates.

cites please. in case you didn't know, skorea's always been union-unfriendly. the entire country is based on a philosophy of export-centric capitalism where the corporation is valued more than the individual. this is why dissidents were always found with unions, and why unions were always targeted. those laws are nothing new.

Conditions imposed by the IMF for a 60 billions loan were also dismissal of labor protection laws, lowering of the minimal wage. Doesn't that sound like an assault against sovereignty? Sure, they can refuse the loan. But have you ever heard someone asking for a loan he doesn't need?

you're right, korea did need the loan. but it was really more of a bailout: 60 billion worth of money to stem the flow of capital that idiots in southeast asia created and tore a gaping hole in korea.
that said, the imf "austerity measures" did not cause the dismissal of labor protection laws, nor a lowering of minimum wage. what happened in actuality is that those measures actually hurt the korean economy, throwing millions out of work.
like i've said before, it wasn't until korea wised up and gave the money back that they started growing again.

[Harry Tuttle]

I really cannot believe this thread is still open. My ears are bleeding from these arguments... And not only are these arguments the most irrelevent, editorial driven drizzle I have seen since a peacenick through a tantrum in front of me last year, but I swear that I can hear the fabric of reality ripping. Has anyone ever read Animal Farm? Stop believing in fantasy. Ugh...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by skywalker


You have a much higher opinion of Kidicious' posts that I do

Actually, I was commenting on my responses.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by JohnT

Of course, I didn't tell you that my father is a succesfull stockbroker who counts many rich businessmen amongst his friends.

"What Daddy did" is not experience nor knowledge, my friend.

I gotta love the quality of your arguments.

Imran claimed that I didn't know anything about companies' desires.
Not counting the fact that you can read what they think in the Wall Street journal and others, I was only using this example to say that I knew personally some very rich businessmen, and that I could ask them directly what they think.

It has nothing to do with daddy's experience; it has to do with me sharing dinner with him and his rich friends, and asking them their opinion.

Obviously Imran was plain wrong in regard to this accusation. I wonder if you read through my whole post, or just saw "my father" and jumped on the opportunity to mock me. I would kindly ask you to cease stupid trolls like this. I was just trying to bring real facts to the discussion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You obviously failed to mention that some countries are so strangled that it's loan or die.

Which is their own fault. If you get the point where it is loan or die, then you damn well better accept the terms of the loan agreement, because they don't have to loan you money. They could let you die.

I call this benefitting from someone's "surviving state" to exploit him.

And I call it giving people a much better job oppertunity.

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?

Is it truely a free choice that you will take a job? Silly argument. There is and never will be an absense of all coercion. You need to work to make money to eat, for shelter, etc. If you want to say that ain't a free choice, then fine. But you still got the choice, even if it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

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.

Oh come on . Yes, having these countries would have given the USSR an economic edge, so that is why we opposed it. It couldn't have anything to do with having a political edge in the Cold War?

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.

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.

Do you actually believe the BS that flows from your mouth? The US wanted the war in Vietnam to be a quagmire so they could benefit military industries?

Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a child?

Venezuela public spendings in 2002 were around 20% of the GDP, which is 50% less than the US.

And rising. I mean it isn't like Chavez talked about nationalizing industies... oh wait... he did! Not like he caused a huge depression by his policies? Oh wait... he did that too!!

Corporations do not want people to be rich. They want to sell their products.

Thanks for contradicting yourself in back-to-back sentances.

Reducing your worker's wage is the most efficient and dratic way to cut on costs.

Only in labor-intensive unskilled work. In capital-intensive skilled jobs such a program is a recipe for disaster.

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?

Look at the CEOs rather than the corporation. Bill Gates has spent a small fortune on charity and so have other CEOs. Corporations usually don't give much money to charity because it AIN'T THEIR MONEY TO GIVE! It's the shareholders' money and the CEO would be taking their money and giving it to others without consulting them.

The job of the officers and directors are to make money for their shareholders. The individual officers and directors, however, can be extremely generous in their giving.

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.

Contradicting yourself, again? It has been shown that more money will be spent if given to the poor. That is because there are things they wish to purchase but cannot afford. So, of course, corporations back some welfare state. But they'll only back the basic sustenance level and then would prefer tax cuts for the poor.

Ask McDonalds if they would like to get rid of the welfare state, seeing as they would lose a ton of money if it was gone.

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.

A. What is wrong with profit?

B. They aren't going to support empoverishing people because that leads to LESS PROFIT! Corporations just don't want some profit, they want to maximize profit, and that comes when plenty of people can afford their goods. That means some basic welfare system and low taxes (high taxes means less disposable income, leading to less purchases).

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.

It probably will. You can have a semi-socialist state which closes off economic growth and wealth to a large sector of the economy or you can use the free market to help bring your people wealth. Hell, even formerly 'communist' countries like China are embracing the free market to increase their wealth.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
I really cannot believe this thread is still open. My ears are bleeding from these arguments... And not only are these arguments the most irrelevent, editorial driven drizzle I have seen since a peacenick through a tantrum in front of me last year, but I swear that I can hear the fabric of reality ripping. Has anyone ever read Animal Farm? Stop believing in fantasy. Ugh...

Again, you are proving that you don't understand a thing of my arguments.

I don't want SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM, as Animal Farm was denouncing. I want a Capitalist Social-Democracy, which I claim the US us not supportive of. Whether that is true or not, should have been the object of this debate.
Instead, the only thing I hear is right-wingers who don't bother to bring a single fact (Ned and Adam Smith, you don't count amongst them) and rather post ad hominem crap claiming I'm a brainwashed paranoid zealot.

I wonder what's the use in posting thousands of words, if people either won't read them or bother to understand the other's point of view.

You won't do it, but I suggest you do the following before answering my posts:
-What is his hypothesis?
-What is his conclusion?
-What are the arguments making the link between the hypothesis and the conclusion?
-Can we prove the facts behind these arguments?

Then, you make your reply. If you find a fallacy, you explain where it is and why you think it is so. If you can't find a fallacy (unlikely), you say "good point dude".

I'm getting tired of these you're a paranoid bastard shut up "arguments".

[Imran Siddiqui]

1.5mbit (really that fast, not the dorky 300k avg when 1.5 is advertised in the states) for ~us$25/mo

Damn!

Imran claimed that I didn't know anything about companies' desires.
Not counting the fact that you can read what they think in the Wall Street journal and others, I was only using this example to say that I knew personally some very rich businessmen, and that I could ask them directly what they think.

Which doesn't prove anything. Rich businessmen do not equal their company's future outlook. They may have a say in it, and make some throwaway comments, but do they say those things in board meetings? I'm guessing... no.

[Japher]

Every company I have worked for, and IMO, almost every country out there includes their commitment to the shareholders in their buisness statement. They sometimes mention "profit" and "returns"... I don't see the problem in a company wanting to increase profits, corporate efficiency and keeping the investors happy is the only reason some ppl have jobs, and is at the core of Capitalism.

I don't want SOCIALISM or COMMUNISM, as Animal Farm was denouncing. I want a Capitalist Social-Democracy, which I claim the US us not supportive of.

Mybe your contradicting yourself, or not making yourself clear in what you want. 'I don't want socialism... I want a capitalist social-democracy'... what the H is a capitalist social-democracy? To me it sounds like more government interference, and if you really want to push that you will find many ppl like me who will stand in your way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what the H is a capitalist social-democracy?

He means France, Germany, Sweden type economies. Capitalist countries that have a huge welfare state.