Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll take it that you do not understand most of my points.

I understand them, I just think they are nonsense .

It is also true that consumer's debts is an at all time high and that the GDP rate of growth is diminishing.

Yes for the past 3 years the GDP rate of growth was diminishing. What about in the late 90s? Is this your evidence of a general breakdown? A small recession?

What about Nicaragua? Argentina? Haiti? Bolivia? All of Africa? 2 winners out of hundreds of losers, is that what you call a success?

2? TWO?!! The US, UK, France, Germany, etc, etc... I can guarentee you that much more than two countries grew from a sweatshop economy to a fully developed capitalist country. Every capitalist country, in fact, has gone through parts of it.

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?

It's a tradeoff. Take the loan and follow the rules or don't take the loan and try to work out of it. Saying we need the loan but don't want to follow the rules that were set out when we signed the loan doesn't qualify as a valid defense.

Sorry, just don't take the damned loan!

you think corporations don't control the government? Say you want your senator to hear your opinion. Who do you bet he'll answer first on the phone: you or Chase Manhattan president? Say he wants money to get elected. Does he call Bill Gates or your granny? Say he wants to convince you that the war in Iraq is a nice thing. Does he call Rupert Murdoch to run some propaganda in the news or an Harvard philosophy teacher to write a brilliant essay based on Hegel's dialectics?

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 .

And the rest of your examples are silly as well. Of course he'll answer Chase Manhattan's president's call first because who the Hell am I? Just one of his many constituents. The President of Chase Manhattan is head of a major bank and so is much more likely to have knowledge on the economic effect on a certain piece of legislation than I do.

And the granny vs. Bill Gates? If you are looking for money for election do you normally go for the person with LESS money?

Allowing companies to contribute to political parties pot is absurd.

Why? Do they not have the free speech right to lobby politicians to initiate programs which they believe will have a better effect on the economy? Since they are more aware of the economic effects of legislation, shouldn't they be able to contribute on the basis of that knowledge?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Damn John... you did it first on the Gates and Chase Manhattan issues .

[JohnT]

And better.

[Fake Boris]

Thanks for your insightful reply, Adam. At least you're showing objectivity.

However, I did not get it straight wrong as you would like it.

Remember, I said railroads in North America . There are two railroads in Canada. Guess what? They imported Chinese workers too. They also used French Canadians when they could not import more Chinese. Straight wrong, you said?

What strikes me in your post is that you bring many arguments to my point and I thank you.

Let's resume this: they face labor shortage. Why? I guess the white men were unreliable workers because they loved the money they got and the good working conditions.
All right, there was the Civil war, but since conscripts were only 1/3 of the Army I doubt this is the main reason.

So they imported starved Chinese whose conditions were even worse in China than in America.
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). This is a shame, really. There are some things that are dependant on historical conditions, true. But such obvious exploitation, not mentioning that it is purely atrocious, seems to demonstrate my point that tycoons won't do anything for justice unless forced to.

Ok I'm tired and going to sleep. Hope I'll see you tomorrow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

they face labor shortage. Why? I guess the white men were unreliable workers because they loved the money they got and the good working conditions.

No, because there weren't enough men to go around. Believe it or not, but the West didn't contain millions as it does now . Did you even read his article? They had whites and Chinese and realized that Chinese were the most industrious workers so prefered them.

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.

But such obvious exploitation, not mentioning that it is purely atrocious, seems to demonstrate my point that tycoons won't do anything for justice unless forced to.

And why should they? 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.

[Fake Boris]

Imran, I'm tired of your idiotic nonsense.

WHAT ARE THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD?

SWEDEN, CANADA, FRANCE, JAPAN, GERMANY, US, SWITZERLAND. DO YOU FIND A LINK BETWEEN THEM? YUP, THEY ARE ALL WELFARE STATES. SOME OF THEM EVEN SPEND MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR GNP ON PUBLIC SPENDINGS.

Yet you claim that free market is the way to go. But you don't realize that taxation is at the opposite of free market. A STATE THAT SPENDS 35+% OF ITS CITIZENS WEALTH IS NOT A FREE MARKET GODAMMIT. US IS NOT A FREE MARKET. THE AMERICAN WEALTH CANNOT BE BASED ON FREE TRADE BECAUSE TRADE IS REGULATED.

What is Free Market? It is a purely theoretical concept. Its political counterpart is Anarchy. Anarchy is impossible, because it can only result in some people grouping and forming a power of some sort. We call it "State".
Free market is impossible, because it can only result in some companies grouping together to consolidate their power. We call it "Cartel".

Free market is a nice word by which Corporations want you to think that economic deregulation will bring wealth, while every single rich country in the world is REGULATED. Hours of work per week, minimal wage. Even taxing corporate profits to fund public education.
Each and everyone of these laws, have, historically, resulted in uproar from corporations. Now that they have lost in the US, they want to make sure they won't in countries that still have no protection of any sort. And yet, they are fighting a constant mediatic guerilla through the press. They are winning.

Did you know that the US ranks at number 31 in the world regarding press liberties? Not a bright spot indeed for the country of "free speech". Now, who is limiting press liberties? The governement? Not to my knowledge. Communist guerillas? Nope. The masses? how could they anyway?

Yes, we've got it. TED TURNER, RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE LIKES.

I remember seeing, in an economy book, a graph that claimed minimal wages were unnecessary because people would not work below a certain salary. Huh? If whoores are sucking deecks for crack, I'm sure most any human will clean a toilet for 0,20$ an hour if it's the only way to buy food.

[Fake Boris]

But such obvious exploitation, not mentioning that it is purely atrocious, seems to demonstrate my point that tycoons won't do anything for justice unless forced to.

And why should they? 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.

You've just made my point.

You agree with me that tycoons won't do anything for justice because they don't have to. Leaving them the world can therefore never result in any justice whatsoever.

Now to some math. The Railroad company wanted 5000 workers but could only get 600. During this time, the Union was accepting thousands of volunteers. People preferred going to the war to laying tracks. The salary in the Union Army was 13$ per month. It was 26$ per month for the Chinese laying tracks. Now laying tracks must have been quite an atrocious task if people preferred going to the war at HALF SALARY!!!
Working for the railroads was probably so dreaded that only a Chinese would accept such a task.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WHAT ARE THE RICHEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD?

SWEDEN, CANADA, FRANCE, JAPAN, GERMANY, US, SWITZERLAND. DO YOU FIND A LINK BETWEEN THEM? YUP, THEY ARE ALL WELFARE STATES. SOME OF THEM EVEN SPEND MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR GNP ON PUBLIC SPENDINGS.

Yet you claim that free market is the way to go. But you don't realize that taxation is at the opposite of free market. A STATE THAT SPENDS 35+% OF ITS CITIZENS WEALTH IS NOT A FREE MARKET GODAMMIT. US IS NOT A FREE MARKET. THE AMERICAN WEALTH CANNOT BE BASED ON FREE TRADE BECAUSE TRADE IS REGULATED.

Why not? Is not the basis for capitalism a more or less free market? When you have businesses buying and selling, don't they use the free market? The fallacy is by socialists who think that Sweden, Canada, US, etc are socialist countries. They aren't. They are decidedly capitalist. They all follow some free market theory. Supply and demand all have an effect. When you go down to store and purchase something, that is a free market transaction. Why? Because it probably ain't a government store. It's two private individuals engaging in a transaction without the government getting involved.

Simply because there are regulations doesn't mean you are not living in a world based on the free market. Even the fact that there is welfare does not mean you are not living in states which tend to embrace the free market. They aren't socialist. You can go down to a private story and buy things.

You think that's silly? Well if country A can give subsidies to an industry and have no tariffs, they would be considered engaging in FREE trade. Don't those government subsidies warp the market? Yep, but it's still 'free trade'. So in the alternative, there is still a free market, even when the government regulates.

Free market is a nice word by which Corporations want you to think that economic deregulation will bring wealth, while every single rich country in the world is REGULATED. Hours of work per week, minimal wage. Even taxing corporate profits to fund public education.

Economic deregulation in industries which are not natural monopolies usually does bring wealth. Look at the the telecom deregulation. Now you have more choice and lower prices.

Did you know that the US ranks at number 31 in the world regarding press liberties? Not a bright spot indeed for the country of "free speech".

Yes, done by a nicely biased study. We've discussed that before and thrown it aside.

Yes, we've got it. TED TURNER, RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE LIKES.

The super liberal Ted Turner you mean? Yes, I'm sure he is pushing for right wing causes .

[Imran Siddiqui]

The salary in the Union Army was 13$ per month. It was 26$ per month for the Chinese laying tracks. Now laying tracks must have been quite an atrocious task if people preferred going to the war at HALF SALARY!!!

Well DUH! The more dangerous the work, the more salary has to be offered.

Working for the railroads was probably so dreaded that only a Chinese would accept such a task.

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?

[Fake Boris]

The super liberal Ted Turner you mean? Yes, I'm sure he is pushing for right wing causes .

I'd rather judge the man from what his mediatic empire does rather than what he says.
Still, I had always thought liberalism to be a right-wing ideology.

For the rest of your arguments, I'll be back tomorrow. Definitely too late now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

What media empire? Or were you not informed that he was fired from AOL Time Warner? No, you wouldn't be, would you?

Still, I had always thought liberalism to be a right-wing ideology.

Liberal as in leftist. As in FDR, George McGovern, Walter Mondale.

[Dis]

don't we have another Boris?

[Ceteram]

I am in shock. If the population sample in this thread is representative, we are looking into a very nasty future indeed. Misinformation rules.

How could you possibly argue that the US is NOT on an imperialistic course, securing bases and prime resource areas, while their exceptionally ridiculous prez throws around sentences like "If you're not with us, you're against us", etc...

Can anybody explain why there are US personnel in Georgia?
First supportive of Shevardnaze, then, once the people kick him out with force, change over to supporting the ex-opposition?!?

One could think that the US is building a new Wonder called "The Bush Pipeline" or maybe "The Freedom Occupations", how does "Live Ammo Training in the Middle East" sound?

Believe me, in my eyes, the US have long lost all honour won in WW2. How could you let this happen, I mean the US administration is really disrespectful towards it's people that put in endless efforts for real freedom in the past.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
Is there an echo here?

Add one more to the echo.

[JohnT]

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

"liberalism is a right wing ideology"

"right wingers are, in fact, closet homosexuals perpetrating their anti-women agenda upon us straights"

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