In remembrance of 9/11

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Oh yes they are.

I'm sorry Fez, however India is quite agricultural with most of its workforce working in (ha!) agriculture. Yes, high tech jobs have increased however it hardly represents such a large shift that your talking about. Most Indians are doing exacty what they've always been doing.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


I'm sorry Fez, however India is quite agricultural with most of its workforce working in (ha!) agriculture. Yes, high tech jobs have increased however it hardly represents such a large shift that your talking about. Most Indians are doing exacty what they've always been doing.

You just pulled a tass bam. India has a growing high tech sector (you cannot deny this, because it is solid fact). I said it was an emerging market. Not a fully high tech economy. So please don't try to twist my words. But hey that is what leftists do.. twist words and facts.

[Nubclear]

ather impressive considering they are jumping from an agricultural state directly to a high tech state

Most Indians are not seeing the effects of this technological boom. When suddenly many Indians are now suddenly working in the technological sector and their economy becomes more fixated on it, I will consider it a "jump" from an agricultural state to a high tech state. But so long as its mostly agriculture, I'll hold off

And whats a "tass bam"? I didn't know I talked enough in the OT to have my own little "strategy" named after me

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

ather impressive considering they are jumping from an agricultural state directly to a high tech state

Most Indians are not seeing the effects of this technological boom. When suddenly many Indians are now suddenly working in the technological sector and their economy becomes more fixated on it, I will consider it a "jump" from an agricultural state to a high tech state. But so long as its mostly agriculture, I'll hold off

And whats a "tass bam"? I didn't know I talked enough in the OT to have my own little "strategy" named after me

Notice the word "they are jumping". That's not a universal statement. It means they are in the process of doing so. Next time read my post before you make assumptions.

[Flip McWho]

The US supported some of the most brutal dictators in the 20th century? Not quite.

Excellent rebuttal.

Many of these Chinese people do not have jobs to begin with and are being paid far more then what they would get paid by their previous agriculture jobs. Think about it. It may be bad for you, but it is not bad for them and how their prices are there, it is not bad at all what jobs they do.

Although I agree with the principle of what you are saying, shouldn't we be trying to get them even better conditions instead of saying just be thankful?

The whole point of communism is murder and suffering.

I have a funny feeling you don't actually know what communism is.

Say, in the 19th and 18th century (and before) Europe and America were in poverty and pulled theirselves out of it slowly. Technological advancements would not of happened if it weren't for capitalism. If you are so concerned, why are you even on your computer and not over their helping people if you are so concerned?

Relatively speaking, in the 18th and 19th century certain European countries and America were rather rich. Well the people at the top were rich. The common person really didn't matter back then did they?

You know what, food cannot and should not be redistributed (that's communism and is illogical). There are too many people on this planet.

Ok so effectively your saying people unlucky enough to be born in very poor countries deserve to die because richer countries shouldn't redistribute food? Also by extension your saying there is too many people on this world therefore the poorer people who can't feed themselves should die.

And face the facts, he was going to run a minority government that made too many mistakes.

Speculation based on?

I'm just saying the country would of been better off under Alessandri. You really should study up on Chile because apparently you know little about how the Allende government ....... If anything everybody in the country gained more wealth. Allende was a crooked criminal bastard.

Proof? You like making arguments with no proof don't you.

I agree with Tassadar on India.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Notice the word "they are jumping". That's not a universal statement. It means they are in the process of doing so. Next time read my post before you make assumptions.

Jumping tends to imply a leap of some kind

[Giancarlo]

Nice minitature rebutal that responded only to selections of my post.

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Although I agree with the principle of what you are saying, shouldn't we be trying to get them even better conditions instead of saying just be thankful?

Hey, hey, I never said anything about not improving conditions. But we have to start from somewhere.

I have a funny feeling you don't actually know what communism is.

Actually I know everything there is to know.

Relatively speaking, in the 18th and 19th century certain European countries and America were rather rich.

Conditions for the average person were not good.

Ok so effectively your saying people unlucky enough to be born in very poor countries deserve to die because richer countries shouldn't redistribute food?

There are countries that have plenty of food that should export more. Like Argentina for one. And countries that should be able to produce enough food for themselves like Zimbabwe (but in reality does not because the Mugabe dictatorship screwed up).

Speculation based on?



Proof? You like making arguments with no proof don't you.

I agree with Tassadar on India.

Your response was very small, very ineffective and very non-factual. Nice try really. You are the one who is making up arguments without proof. Nice try.

[Flip McWho]

Yeah I don't enough of what I'm talking about to respond to everything.

Hey, hey, I never said anything about not improving conditions. But we have to start from somewhere.

Agree with this.

Actually I know everything there is to know.

Oh? I've never meet anyone who knows everything there is to know about a certain subject.

Your response was very small, very ineffective and very non-factual. Nice try really. You are the one who is making up arguments without proof. Nice try.

Hey, I'm only just starting to get into this. Gotta give me time to work up to slam dunks . I usually just post in the less "serious" threads.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Flip McWho

Oh? I've never meet anyone who knows everything there is to know about a certain subject.

That came out the wrong way. I didn't mean I know every single thing. But I know a fair share...

Hey, I'm only just starting to get into this. Gotta give me time to work up to slam dunks . I usually just post in the less "serious" threads.

I'm just after the starter of this thread, no one else.

[johncmcleod]

The only economic terrorism is instigated by the Cuban government on its own people. Certainly there has been some "minor openings" in its economy, but nothing substantial. If they were to open their private sector to investment the Cuban economy could get on track. And if your beloved Castro would hold elections and step down, then maybe things could go forward. The Cuban people are only punished by Castro and his stupidity.

Have you read my posts? If you did you'd realize I don't like Castro. I like his economics, hate his politics. The US put major embargoes on Cuba. I will write more on this subject tomorrow, but it is almost midnight so I'll have to cut it short.

The US supported some of the most brutal dictators in the 20th century? Not quite.

Where have you been the last 50 years? How about Suharto? America supported him throughout his brutal reign (between 500,000-1,000,000 suspected communists, mostly peasants were murdered), but were they really did some damage is when they gave him 90% of the weapons, aircraft, and chemicals to wipe out 200,000 of 600,000 people on the island. How about Saddam Hussein? We supported the coup that put him in power, gave him aid to build up his military, allowed our corporations to sell him chemicals to build WMD and gas his people. Brutal enough for you? How about Pinochet? General Somoza in Nicaragua? Marcos in the Phillippines? How about Diem in South Vietnam? Military dictatorships in South Korea from the 50s to 80s? South Africa and its apartheid regime? Or Saudi Arabia? They are possibly the most brutal regime out there right now. Or how about Guatemala in 1954? A democratic government decides to take away land from American corporations. Now that was unacceptable. The US fomented a coup to remove the president, and set up the conditions that lead to the takeover of a genocidal regime that was supported for decades. What about El Salvador? Or what about the counterinsurgency campaign in Greece in the 40s? How about Iran? A representative government tries to take control of Iranian oil fields instead of having the first world corporations steal the oil. This results in the US installing the brutal Shah. How about Nicaragua in the 1980s? A democratic government takes control, the US supports the remnants of General Somoza's army and has them terrorize the Nicaraguan people in whatever way they can. Thousands of innocent people were tortured, raped, and/or killed.

If that isn't brutal enough for you, then what is?!

Cuba's economy wasn't great to begin with and your beloved communist state has destroyed it even further. Cuba's economy is way better than most Latin American countries? Think again. Argentina is better. Even Colombia. Both Argentina and Colombia have a large light manufacturing sector.. Argentina did suffer a major economic blow in 2001, but it has made some good strides since then. If you really want to make Cuba better, its political system has to change to be more democratic. The Cuban government is ruthless and idiotic.

Cuba doesn't have the resources that Argentina or Colombia has. If it weren't for Castro, it would be any other poor third world Caribbean nation.

Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. And you don't know what capitalism really is. I am not all about money and making money. There is much more to life then that. I'm not some zombie. However, I think communism is the most evil idea ever to exist, after Hitlerism. Capitalism has made many advancements for the world. It will continue to make advancements. It has made substantial medical strides (pfizer is one of the companies that has done this).

How is communism evil?! It is what humans used for hundreds of thousands of years? All it is is an economic system that redistributes wealth amongst the people. It is exactly what the early Christians did. There is nothing wrong with this. All it does is ensure no one lives in poverty and no one starves. And I think you might be confused. And Hitlerism isn't a term. It is Fascism, or Racism, or Nationalism, whatever you want to call it.

What advancements has capitalism made for mankind? Do you think people are happier inside because they believe that if they drive the Lexus instead of the cheap car? Or do you think they are happier because they get to spend all of their time worrying about the latest fashion trend? Are they happier because their life is a tad bit more convenient? Are they happier because they can spend hours in mindless chat rooms?

Are they happier because they are starving? Are they happier because they have been destroyed by war? Are they happier because they have no idea whether or not any of their kids will make it to the next harvest season? I just can't seem to understand your rationale. Why is capitalism so good when half our population is starving and the top 10% has so much money they don't know what do do with it? Why is capitalism so good when 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth? And the few who actually have decent lives are consumed by materialism? And why do the rich in first world countries suffer from depression? Why do people in America commit suicide? It is because you don't gain anything by being rich.

Yeah capitalism! It has developed a drug that the rich people will be able to afford so they can live longer lives.

Money doesn't matter. It is just an integral part of the economy. If you think an economy is evil and should be destroyed, then you are against civilization, free trade, the free exchange of ideas and you are for the most brutal form of government ever, a style like that of the Khmer Rogue. They are the shining example of a regime that got rid of currency and essentially wiped out their economy. The whole point of communism is murder and suffering. It kills. It kills in the millions. The whole point of capitalism may be profit, but that is not a bad aim. Drug companies already do sell large quantities of medcine for very cheap to third world countries. The governments of these countries get a lot of aid money they often misuse. And you are wrong again. Think about what kind of jobs those people working in "sweatshops" would get in the previous agricultural jobs they most likely held. You have to look at the facts and have to look at what these people were doing before. Even with these low paying factory jobs they are better off then they are before. I'm not going to get redundant.

It is more than an integral part of the economy. It is the whole economy. The whole point of capitalism is money. Everything is fueled by the greed for profit. I am undecided on civilization. Humanity lived for 3 million years in perfect harmony with nature, and we were happy. We lived in Utopia. No one was starving. There was war, but it was just the tribes stepping on each others' toes. They didn't exterminate each other. And they were a happy people. No depression. No suicide. None of the feeling of emptiness that most people feel in their lives. And then civilization came along and now there is nothing but suffering.

And well, this means that I MUST be against the exchange of ideas, and that means that I am automatically for the worst type of government.

And to that first sentence of the paragraph. Didn't you say communism is evil? That is an economic system. So according to your logic you are an evil person who believes in the ideals of the Khmer Rouge.

I don't support massive inequalities. I am sorry. I just don't like them. But that doesn't mean I like the Khmer Rouge. The idea of people leaving the cities and living out on collective farms wasn't necessarily a bad idea. The world would be a better place if we lived tribalistically. But I don't like the Khmer Rouge's idea of government. I don't believe in authoritian government like Pol Pot's. Now if the Cambodian people ran these collectives themselves with either a democratic or anarchic government, then it would be great.

And so you think just because the alternative isn't great, it is okay to exploit people in sweatshops? You think that is the Christian thing to do? If we really cared for the third world we'd allow them to gain self-determination. What the third world nations try to do is organize their labor and stop the first world from ruining their countries. But these attempts have been brutally crushed. It happened in Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. And the US supports capitalist thugs like Allende and Suharto that put down all of the revolts. Sweatshops often operate in countries were the dictators do not allow any type of free speech or labor organization. This is how sweatshop labor works, and it is how America so so filthy rich.

That is pretty hateful but you do have a point... Americans should lighten their diets. I'm not american (and I'm 6'2" at 145 pounds).

A lot of people in the world who are starving wouldn't think it hateful to be disgusted by this system and its effects. If you were starving and saw an American who makes 60 times more money than you do and is stuffing his face with fattening foods and then throwing away most of what he got, you'd get pretty mad.

I hate to break this to you, but ever since we have been on this planet there has been war. There is not a damn thing you can do about it. It has nothing to do with capitalism. It is political mistakes, political judgements and political moves made by leaders and rebel groups. War has always been widespread. Suffering has always been widespread. Only after the cold war have many civil wars end. There are still 20 some odd civil wars going on, but you have to accept a fact about this earth is that war is bound to happen. Communism won't solve anything. It will only create more war.

First off, how does communism create more war? That wouldn't make any sense. If the world was one giant globalist, non-capitalist state there would be no war. Everyone would get access to all the resources. No one would be starving. There would be no reason for war. War is caused because of greed. America has invaded just about every Latin American nation in this past century and put in place capitalist dictators to line the pockets of American corporations.

Say, in the 19th and 18th century (and before) Europe and America were in poverty and pulled theirselves out of it slowly. Technological advancements would not of happened if it weren't for capitalism. If you are so concerned, why are you even on your computer and not over their helping people if you are so concerned? You know what, food cannot and should not be redistributed (that's communism and is illogical). There are too many people on this planet.

You think every nation can just 'pull itself out of poverty?' Not everyone can be rich with this capitalist system. There isn't infinte amounts of wealth. In order for the poor to get richer, the rich have to give up their money. This won't happen. Do you know how the rich nations got themselves out of poverty? The adopted more socialistic economic systems and they got rich on the back of the third world. It had nothing to do with capitalism.

You think technology helps? Are people any happier than they were 500,000 years ago because of some new technology? People don't get happier by such things.

Why shouldn't food be redistributed?! People are starving. There is no excuse. It isn't illogical. You dindn't even back it up with any logical statements. Food can and should be redistributed. How do you think humans have lived for the past 3 million years (before the beginning of this civilization experiment that started a few thousand years ago)? And there aren't too many people. If farmers grew crops to their full potential, there would be too much food for everyone. The problem isn't people. The problem is capitalism sucks and is destroying the world and its people.

Communism. Considering I just about debunked your entire argument to begin with... OUCH!

OUCH! I am falling out my chair in pain. Your logic is just so overwhelming. 'Communism sucks.' OUCH!

India? Making tremendous strides. Rather impressive considering they are jumping from an agricultural state directly to a high tech state (Bangalore I believe is the center of technology manufacturing in India). There has been some form of a peace deal in Sri Lanka. Bangladesh has had successes with microlending (though it is still poor). Bangladesh has far too many people. Indonesia is starting to stabilize itself albeit slowly. Malaysia has the tallest buildings in the world and is becoming a shining example of a strong emerging market ready to grasp developed status. Cambodia got out of a communist dictatorship (the most glaring example of your system) and is on the long road of recovery. I could go through the rest if you want me to.

You think it matters if a few rich people in India get some computers? Hundreds of millions of people live in absolute poverty, a kind that you nor I could comprehend. Wow, Sri Lanka has a peace deal. Too bad the people there have a horrible lifestyle. Bangladesh is just like any other capitalist nation. Saying there are too many people isn't a valid excuse. That is the way our world works. We need an economic system that can deal with this. Indonesia has been destroyed by capitalist policies. Their people are exploited for their labor by first world corporations. It has been like this for 40 years. Just beginning to stabilize itself doesn't cut it. Malaysia has a really tall building. Cool. Too bad the average person there lives in poverty. Cambodia has been capitalist for 25 years, nothing good has happened.

He was the most popular candidate by a one or two percent. And face the facts, he was going to run a minority government that made too many mistakes.

So how does being the most popular candidate and getting voted in an election make you a dictatorship? I don't understand your 'logic.'

I don't know why I wasted 40 minutes of my time writing this.

[GeneralTacticus]

Humanity lived for 3 million years in perfect harmony with nature, and we were happy. We lived in Utopia. No one was starving. There was war, but it was just the tribes stepping on each others' toes. They didn't exterminate each other. And they were a happy people. No depression. No suicide. None of the feeling of emptiness that most people feel in their lives. And then civilization came along and now there is nothing but suffering.

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. There is no conceivable way that a rational person could consider the hunter-gatherer societies that existed before the 'civilisation experiment', as you called it, to be a Utopia or in any way a nice place to live. Life expectancy was about the same as in the most dirt-poor Third World nations today, life was a constant struggle for survival, and, yes, people did kill each other then, too. The only reason it seems nastier now is that we have more efficient ways to do it; not a very positive development, but, IMO, rather outweighed by all the other advantages that have come from the past ten thousand years or so.

[Drogue]

Much as I really hate to do this, Fez

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Half of the planet's population suffers from malnutrition. Yet one in three Americans are obese from stuffing their fat faces with food. Our planet's ecosystem is being destroyed. Hundreds of millions are starving. War is widespread, hundreds of millions of people have had experienced the horrors of the battlefield or have had their lives affected directly and severely by war. Most people on this planet live in poverty. Things such as having money in the bank, having more than the clothes on your back, or having food in the refridgerator are unknown concepts to most of the world's population. Yet we are sitting here right now on our computers. Some of these problems could be solved. If food was redsitributed throughout the world, everyone could get over 2000 calories a day. And that isn't even using the world's full agricultural potential.

Now which economic system is more idiotic?

If there was a system that could get 2000 calories per day to everyone, that could make everyones conditions liveable, and have the ability to progress the species to a better standard of life, I'd be all for it. There isn't. Communism, done worldwide in practice, would be so woefully inefficient and burocratic that most of that food, those conditions, would be wasted.

The best way to help improve the third world is to allow them to sell to our markets, while not selling to theirs. Remove our agricultural subsidies, remove our tariffs on their goods. We'll export jobs, they'll export goods. Once their wages have risen to something closer to ours, production costs will be similar. That's how the world gets more equal - naturally. If you remove the artificial barriers and let it go naturally, the world will slowly equalize. Trying to make sure that all goods are divided equally, so that everyone gets enough, has two main problems. It's so hard on a logistic scale as to be impossible, it would cause massive wastage, people trying to horde it, to get better for themselves and most of it wouldn't get to the poor. Human nature is to look out for 'you and yours', not to try to make everything equal. Communism works when it's in the best interest of the individual, as in small groups, when they need to work together to survive. On a large scale, it leads to corruption, not just at a high level, but all people trying to get more for themselves. Secondly, it gives no opportunity to work hard and better yourself. Living costs improve, technology improves, all because people have an incentive to work. When you remove that incentive, the world may be equal and liveable, but it wouldn't ever get any better.

I would admit that Pinochet, from what little I know, was far worse than Allande. But when it comes to solving problems of poverty worldwide, worldwide communism won't help. What is needed is time to allow their economies to grow, while we don't curtail them, and then to let them compete openly, as thay can produce cheaper. However the US, and most of the developed world won't agree to remove tariffs/subsidies on them while allowing them to have them on us, even for a small period of time. It's not in the short term interests of the developed world (ie, the length of a Presidency). It would make jobs move from developed to developing world, and for a time, it would cause our economies to slow down. However it would raise the economies of the third world to viable trading partners, and after 20 years or so, we'd be reaping the benefits, as would the whole world. Is a relatively small short term reduction worth that?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Have you read my posts? If you did you'd realize I don't like Castro. I like his economics, hate his politics. The US put major embargoes on Cuba. I will write more on this subject tomorrow, but it is almost midnight so I'll have to cut it short.

You're very young, and your opinions are not very developed. I'm not insulting you. I'm just saying you should examine the facts before you continue on your unfounded anti-america crusades.

More nonsense I have to through...

Where have you been the last 50 years? How about Suharto? America supported him throughout his brutal reign (between 500,000-1,000,000 suspected communists, mostly peasants were murdered)

I want you to start naming people of today. And Suharto had a lot more support from the Europeans then anything.

How about Saddam Hussein? We supported the coup that put him in power

No actually we didn't. For one reason: Saddam Hussein started nationalizing the oil industry and put it under government control.

gave him aid to build up his military

Is that why 100% of his military is Russian, Chinese or French built?

allowed our corporations to sell him chemicals to build WMD and gas his people.

Is that why all of his WMDs are of Russian origin?

Brutal enough for you? How about Pinochet? General Somoza in Nicaragua?

You are talking nonsense. You are young and not very informed about the issues. General Somoza wasn't that brutal compared to the rapist Daniel Ortega who took power.

How about Diem in South Vietnam?

The US withdrew support of Diem after he turned his regime very repressive.

Military dictatorships in South Korea from the 50s to 80s?

Who made South Korea better off..

South Africa and its apartheid regime?

After the 1960s, the US didn't support South Africa. It had to do with a cultural change in the US itself. The US was against apartheid.

Or Saudi Arabia? They are possibly the most brutal regime out there right now. Or how about Guatemala in 1954? A democratic government decides to take away land from American corporations.

I'm going to continue going through this B.S when it comes. Saudi Arabia is opening itself up (mainly because of US pressure).. women can get jobs that were once only reserved for men.

Now that was unacceptable.

Actually your anti-america crusades in this forum are unacceptable.

The US fomented a coup to remove the president, and set up the conditions that lead to the takeover of a genocidal regime that was supported for decades. What about El Salvador? Or what about the counterinsurgency campaign in Greece in the 40s? How about Iran? A representative government tries to take control of Iranian oil fields instead of having the first world corporations steal the oil. This results in the US installing the brutal Shah. How about Nicaragua in the 1980s? A democratic government takes control, the US supports the remnants of General Somoza's army and has them terrorize the Nicaraguan people in whatever way they can. Thousands of innocent people were tortured, raped, and/or killed.

This all ridiculous. First off, read the book "Perfect guide to the Latin American idiot" and you can really observe the facts. The El Salvadorean government during the 80s was democratically elected. The killings done by the FLMN caused the Armed Forces to commit acts of brutality. And counterinsurgency campaign in Greece during the 40s? That was WWII, dude. A government shouldn't take control of petroleum sector because that's gambling with the stability of the world. Somoza wasn't all that bad in reality. It was the rapist communist Daniel Ortega who was far worse. You obviously can see that your side is all "good" and my side is just a bunch of murderers. Bull****.

If that isn't brutal enough for you, then what is?!

What about Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao Zedong? Shall I name more ideal communists of your beloved system...

Cuba doesn't have the resources that Argentina or Colombia has. If it weren't for Castro, it would be any other poor third world Caribbean nation.

I hate to break this to you, but it is like every other poor third world Caribbean nation.

How is communism evil?! It is what humans used for hundreds of thousands of years?

No it is not.

All it is is an economic system that redistributes wealth amongst the people.

That's against human nature in all respects. I don't want to be making the same as somebody lower then me. And no this has NEVER been done before, properly. You may bring up, say, the USSR... well we see where that went.

There is nothing wrong with this. All it does is ensure no one lives in poverty and no one starves.

Actually it makes people starve. It causes food shortages.

And I think you might be confused. And Hitlerism isn't a term. It is Fascism, or Racism, or Nationalism, whatever you want to call it.

Want a bet? Dictionary.com.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hitlerism

Who is wrong now? Ouch! YOU GOT PWNED!

What advancements has capitalism made for mankind? Do you think people are happier inside because they believe that if they drive the Lexus instead of the cheap car? Or do you think they are happier because they get to spend all of their time worrying about the latest fashion trend? Are they happier because their life is a tad bit more convenient? Are they happier because they can spend hours in mindless chat rooms?

This is a sign of true arrogance. Capitalism has brought along computers, cars, aircraft, medicine, and all sorts of other items that have helped man kind. If it weren't for capitalism, you wouldn't be typing on your computer. So please spare me. If it weren't for capitalism, you wouldn't have fashion sense. If it weren't for capitalism, you wouldn't have prosperity. You would have world-wide murder done by ultra-leftists.

Are they happier because they are starving? Are they happier because they have been destroyed by war? Are they happier because they have no idea whether or not any of their kids will make it to the next harvest season? I just can't seem to understand your rationale. Why is capitalism so good when half our population is starving and the top 10% has so much money they don't know what do do with it? Why is capitalism so good when 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth? And the few who actually have decent lives are consumed by materialism? And why do the rich in first world countries suffer from depression? Why do people in America commit suicide? It is because you don't gain anything by being rich.

This is getting so ridiculous. They didn't have jobs to begin with. And no capitalism didn't cause these wars because there were outlying political reasons for them. You just don't understand that war has been happening since we were cavemen. I just can't understand your false, utterly false rationale. You really should read more about these subjects and maybe you learn more. And congrats, on picking select pieces of my post and responding. You failed in providing an adequate response. Capitalism is very good because it builds up a middle class (in communism everybody is poor and starving... misery is distributed equally to all). Why do people in America commit suicide? It is perhaps because people are mentally unstable for personal reasons. You don't gain anything for being ignorant.

Yeah capitalism! It has developed a drug that the rich people will be able to afford so they can live longer lives.

Actually, drugs have been made cheaper by competition, dude.

It is more than an integral part of the economy. It is the whole economy. The whole point of capitalism is money. Everything is fueled by the greed for profit. I am undecided on civilization. Humanity lived for 3 million years in perfect harmony with nature, and we were happy. We lived in Utopia. No one was starving. There was war, but it was just the tribes stepping on each others' toes. They didn't exterminate each other. And they were a happy people. No depression. No suicide. None of the feeling of emptiness that most people feel in their lives. And then civilization came along and now there is nothing but suffering.

You don't know what an economy is if you support communism. That simple. You don't the simple basics of how an economy works. And no, capitalism is fueled by the wanting to succeed and bring prosperity. Humanity lived 3 million years in perfect harmony with nature, and we were happy? How do you know? Were you there? There was constant warfare and bickering. And yes tribes did exterminate each other. Nice try really, but no cigar. And no depression? Really? How do you know? No suicide? How do you know? Were you there? You see, you make all of these BAM statements with no evidence what-so-ever to support them.

And well, this means that I MUST be against the exchange of ideas, and that means that I am automatically for the worst type of government.

Yes you are.

So according to your logic you are an evil person who believes in the ideals of the Khmer Rouge.

No, I said you are the evil person who believes in the ideals of the Khmer Rouge. You support income redistribution, mass murder, mass starvation and wiping out the economy.

The idea of people leaving the cities and living out on collective farms wasn't necessarily a bad idea.

It was a murderous idea. If you even think it is a good idea, you apparently have some issues.

The world would be a better place if we lived tribalistically.

Nope. I'm sorry but I won't be apart of that. IF you want to live in a cave fine. But I'm not going to be ignorant.

And so you think just because the alternative isn't great, it is okay to exploit people in sweatshops? You think that is the Christian thing to do? If we really cared for the third world we'd allow them to gain self-determination. What the third world nations try to do is organize their labor and stop the first world from ruining their countries. But these attempts have been brutally crushed. It happened in Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. And the US supports capitalist thugs like Allende and Suharto that put down all of the revolts. Sweatshops often operate in countries were the dictators do not allow any type of free speech or labor organization. This is how sweatshop labor works, and it is how America so so filthy rich.

You are sooooooooooooooooooooo wrong. I'm so sorry but this is absolutely wrong. I never said anything about christianity. I'm not christian. I'm atheist. Organization of labor is not a bad thing. Never did I say that. You are making so many statements about my beliefs on things I never said. That's all very funny. Allende was a capitalist "thug"? I think that was a mistype. You are sooo wrong... sweatshops are often a lot better then what treatment the people already received in those countries.

A lot of people in the world who are starving wouldn't think it hateful to be disgusted by this system and its effects. If you were starving and saw an American who makes 60 times more money than you do and is stuffing his face with fattening foods and then throwing away most of what he got, you'd get pretty mad.

Hahaha.. that statement is so hilarious. I'm sorry. I can't help myself... but the capitalist system has nothing to do with eating disorders of people. If anything, if we were still hunting, I would bet you these people would hunt down so much food they would get fat either way. So got you there again...

First off, how does communism create more war? That wouldn't make any sense. If the world was one giant globalist, non-capitalist state there would be no war. Everyone would get access to all the resources. No one would be starving. There would be no reason for war. War is caused because of greed. America has invaded just about every Latin American nation in this past century and put in place capitalist dictators to line the pockets of American corporations.

Communism is naturally intended to cause war. It kills. It kills millions upon millions. Non-capitalism cannot exist because it violates humanity. I'm sorry again, no cigar on that one. Everyone would get access to all the resources? I hate to be the pessimist on this one, but there aren't enough resources for the amount of people on this planet. America has invaded just about every Latin American nation in the past century? It invaded Argentina? Chile? Brazil?

You think every nation can just 'pull itself out of poverty?' Not everyone can be rich with this capitalist system. There isn't infinte amounts of wealth. In order for the poor to get richer, the rich have to give up their money. This won't happen. Do you know how the rich nations got themselves out of poverty? The adopted more socialistic economic systems and they got rich on the back of the third world. It had nothing to do with capitalism.

Wealth cannot be redistributed. That's an immature system to advocate. You either get with the program or you lose. That simple. And the poor can get richer by pulling through income brackets (This has nothing to do with income redistribution). Again please read some books on the subject (once you are in college maybe that will be a fact). Rich nations adopted socialistic economic systems? That's another false statement.

You think technology helps? Are people any happier than they were 500,000 years ago because of some new technology? People don't get happier by such things.

People are living longer, and are a lot more happy now then they are 500,000 years ago. People feel better about themselves. So yes, people do get happier by such things, it is wrong and communist to say otherwise.

Why shouldn't food be redistributed?! People are starving. There is no excuse. It isn't illogical.

There isn't enough to go around. I have no problem with companies developing genetically modified seeds that can grow in a place with less then 10 inches of rain a year.

You dindn't even back it up with any logical statements.

None of your post has had any.

The problem is capitalism sucks and is destroying the world and its people.

You have been totally brainwashed. I'm sorry, but I have to point that out. You are the kind of people who are causing civil wars, and your ignorance is causing suffering and mass starvation. My system is the most sound in getting people food in the most logical way. What are you? 16 years old? Who got to you?

Hundreds of millions of people live in absolute poverty, a kind that you nor I could comprehend. Wow, Sri Lanka has a peace deal.

I hate to break this to you, but those people have lived in poverty for thousands and thousands of years. Communism is NEVER going to change a damn thing. Now I'm getting very frustrated with this..

Bangladesh is just like any other capitalist nation.

Bangladesh isn't a valid example of capitalism because of the amount of corruption at the government level. Capitalism reduces corruption. The government would decline in size.

That is the way our world works. We need an economic system that can deal with this.

WRONGO! You don't know how the world works, rather I do. Capitalism is the only working economic system that can deal with world problems. Communism doesn't function properly because it contradicts human nature. Sorry.

Indonesia has been destroyed by capitalist policies. Their people are exploited for their labor by first world corporations. It has been like this for 40 years.

Indonesia was a lot more poor before Suharto.

Just beginning to stabilize itself doesn't cut it.

This is getting really stupid.. I'm not insulting you, but your rhetoric is really getting on my nerves. Your arguments don't cut it. They don't make any sense.

Malaysia has a really tall building. Cool. Too bad the average person there lives in poverty.

This again is ridiculous. A immature statement. The average person lives comfortable and in line with prices in the country.

Cambodia has been capitalist for 25 years, nothing good has happened.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.. that's so funny. Cambodia capitalist? Explain why its economy is still for the most part state owned?

I don't know why I wasted 40 minutes of my time writing this.

I don't know why I wasted 40 minutes of my time responding to a young impressionable kid who doesn't have anything better to do but believe in a wrong, immoral economic system.

[Flip McWho]

"You're very young, and your opinions are not very developed."

Ummmm how old are you? I suppose its nice to be arrogant enough to presume that everything you say is truth.

[Stefu]

Half of the planet's population suffers from malnutrition. Yet one in three Americans are obese from stuffing their fat faces with food. Our planet's ecosystem is being destroyed. Hundreds of millions are starving. War is widespread, hundreds of millions of people have had experienced the horrors of the battlefield or have had their lives affected directly and severely by war. Most people on this planet live in poverty. Things such as having money in the bank, having more than the clothes on your back, or having food in the refridgerator are unknown concepts to most of the world's population. Yet we are sitting here right now on our computers. Some of these problems could be solved. If food was redsitributed throughout the world, everyone could get over 2000 calories a day. And that isn't even using the world's full agricultural potential.

Now which economic system is more idiotic?

Since the fifties, there's been a consistent trend in life expectancy rising, infant mortality falling, literacy ratings rising, rate of people living in absolute poverty falling, and starvation rates falling. Linkywinky. Socialism hasn't had too much to do with it, though, considering that the least progress has been made in the continent that's been quite plagued with that particular ideology, Africa. Furthermore, in 2003, there were less wars going around than in any other year of the post-cold war period expect in 1997. Linkywinky.

Ummmm how old are you? I suppose its nice to be arrogant enough to presume that everything you say is truth.

If I remember correctly Fez is 20-23...ish.