In remembrance of 9/11

[Az]

considering that the least progress has been made in the continent that's been quite plagued with that particular ideology, Africa.

Oh, yeah, Africa is a commie paradise....

[Stefu]

It's even less a free-market paradise.

[Flip McWho]

So still very young then.

Now how old is johncmcleod? If he is older we can pretty discount all of Fez's arguments using Fez's own logic couldn't we?

[Drogue]

Stefu
Use of the phrase 'winky' in another word

[Az]

It's even less a free-market paradise.

Wait, so you can either be a commie, or the US of A?

LOLZ.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So still very young then.

Now how old is johncmcleod? If he is older we can pretty discount all of Fez's arguments using Fez's own logic couldn't we?

14 or 15.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Stefu
It's even less a free-market paradise.

Free market != capitalism

[GeneralTacticus]

He's 17, according to his profile...

[johncmcleod]

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.

That's the thing. Of course life back then wasn't as convenient as it is now (for the elite few in the first world). Yet the lifestyle was so much more fulfilling that it offset this. When the white men came to America, the natives did not stop their way of life and adopt the 'civilized' living. They realized the superficialness and emptiness of our way of life. There is a reason they held on to their way of life until the end. Now that they have to live like we do, most of them live in poverty and spend their money on drinking and gambling.

Now obviously I am not calling for human beings to go back to being hunter-gatherers. A society can be tribal and agricultural. They can have an easier, more convenient lifestyle but most of all a better one. I'm not necessarily advocating for everyone to be tribalistic again, either. I'm just bringing up the point that when people lived communally (that means sharing food, which Giancarlo said was evil) and tribally things were a lot better.

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.

It sure as hell would be way better than what we have now, and it deserves a try.

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.

You can improve the third world, but not everyone can be rich. The only way we can live in such a manner is because of the third world. You can't have the rich without the poor. If we start improving the third world, allowing them to become core nations instead of dependent nations, and allowing them to regulate their own economies, and allowing them to have economies that are self-sufficient and not single-product, the first world will really take a hit. And anway the nations with more resources will always be way more rich than nations like Haiti, who don't have anything to base an economy on.

And I am not communist. I am non-capitalist. There is a difference. I have just been using the term 'communism' in my arguments because that is the term Giancarlo is using. I think that in any system there has to be incentive. If you don't work, you should be punished. You also should be allowed to better yourself if you feel like it. Those who work harder would get more money that was to be spent on luxury goods. The necessities would be provided for.

There might be some inefficiencies, but large scale communism has been attempted and has worked. By the time the USSR became industrialized (the problem with the USSR is that is wasn't industrialized, it made the transition from feudalism to communism without the capitalism) and stabilized, the people didn't starve. The people in Cuba don't starve either.

You seem to talk about technology as if it benefits mankind so much. It is a common myth. Sure it may make life a little more convenient, but it really doesn't make us happier. Do you think people are much happier than they were in 1950 because they have bigger TVs? Logic tells us that if we have nicer things our life will be better. But that isn't the way things work with humans. If it was true, America would be full of happy people. No one would ever be sad, depressed, suicidal, or ever feel like life is empty, superficial, pointless, or meaningless. But this is not the case. Once you have a reasonably comfortable and decent lifestyle, you can't do much more materialistically to make life better. I know a lot of poor people who don't have a lot of technology that are way happier than the rich people. Material things don't buy happiness. We are more advanced then ever, yet we aren't getting any happier.

I will not waste any more time on Giancarlo's posts. He has the logic of a child, and I will probably get dumber by arguing with him. Somehow Allende, a democratically elected president, and Ortega, another democratic president, are thugs and murderers and General Somoza is okay. If you want, you can tell everyone that you beat me in the argument. I really don't care. I don't need to waste any more time doing this to prove to myself that I am fed up with this rotten system.

The only thing I will add is that the US supports the most brutal regime in the world, the Saudis, along with dictatorships throughout Africa and Asia, such as Morocco, Uzbekistan, Turkemistan, Pakistan, etc.

And BTW, when I called Allende a capitalist thug it was a mistype. I meant Pinochet. I don't think I'd call Allende a thug if I made this thread for him.

Also, 100-37=63, not 73. And 2004-1987=17, not 16, like you wrote when you made your first post, or 14 or 15 when you posted second.

If you don't believe my age, you can look up the records at Gonzaga Preparatory School in Spokane, Washington. I'll be in there under John McLeod and I am 17 (even if I look like a tall twelve year old).

Mozart performed around Europe when he was 5.

[GeneralTacticus]

That's the thing. Of course life back then wasn't as convenient as it is now (for the elite few in the first world). Yet the lifestyle was so much more fulfilling that it offset this.

Hmmm... so being ignorant, living to half the age people can now, being subject to constant risk of death from disease, wild animals, accident, and other people, and being subject to countless diseases that can now be easily contained, is offset by life being supposedly more 'fulfilling'? No thanks. I like being able to take time off from surviving to enjoy myself.

When the white men came to America, the natives did not stop their way of life and adopt the 'civilized' living. They realized the superficialness and emptiness of our way of life. There is a reason they held on to their way of life until the end.

Yes, they held to it because it was what they knew, and because, to be quite frank, the Europeans weren't offering them their lifestyle (which, at the time, was pretty horrible anyway). Even if they had been, it's difficult to adjust to a total change in your way of life.

Look at it this way. Imagine that, tommorrow, a fleet of alien spacecraft arrived in orbit around Earth, and offered us a new and completely alien way of life, which, while it to far better than the 'primitive' way we lived now, was also so different to ours as to be completely incomprehensible to us. Do you think we'd all leap to join them?

Now that they have to live like we do, most of them live in poverty and spend their money on drinking and gambling.

So because they got screwed over and don't have the same lifestyle other people do, that lifestyle is a bad thing? Curious logic you have there.

Now obviously I am not calling for human beings to go back to being hunter-gatherers. A society can be tribal and agricultural. They can have an easier, more convenient lifestyle but most of all a better one. I'm not necessarily advocating for everyone to be tribalistic again, either. I'm just bringing up the point that when people lived communally (that means sharing food, which Giancarlo said was evil) and tribally things were a lot better.

Again, in the times you're talking about, things were ****. Oh, no doubt you could be just as happy then as you could now (as long as you weren't used to things being the way they are now), but that doesn't mean pople were better off then than now.

You seem to talk about technology as if it benefits mankind so much. It is a common myth. Sure it may make life a little more convenient, but it really doesn't make us happier. Do you think people are much happier than they were in 1950 because they have bigger TVs? Logic tells us that if we have nicer things our life will be better. But that isn't the way things work with humans. If it was true, America would be full of happy people. No one would ever be sad, depressed, suicidal, or ever feel like life is empty, superficial, pointless, or meaningless. But this is not the case. Once you have a reasonably comfortable and decent lifestyle, you can't do much more materialistically to make life better. I know a lot of poor people who don't have a lot of technology that are way happier than the rich people. Material things don't buy happiness. We are more advanced then ever, yet we aren't getting any happier.

You want to know how technology makes our lives better? Firstly, it, as you acknowledged, makes us materially more comfortable. This may not make us happier, but it certainly gives us less reason to be unhappy.

Secondly, it allows us to live longer, safer, and healthier lives; try telling, say, a smallpox victim that people are better off without a cure to the disease (well, you can't because smallpox has been eradicated, but that's kind of the point). Again, this isn't going to make us happy on it's own, but it removes reasons to be unhappy.

Thirdly, you talk about people being "sad, depressed, suicidal" and feeingl "like life is empty, superficial, pointless, or meaningless" as though these have anything to do with technology. It can't cure them, only the people who feel like that can, but it doesn't cause them either, except in that it takes away our illusions about the world we live in. I mean, peasants in the Middle Ages believed that life had a purpose (namely, obedience to the will of God); were they better off than us? Considering the conditions they lived in, any sane person would say no.

Fourthly, just to emphasise the point: happiness is, ultimately, about the way people feel. Yes, you can be happy while being dirt poor, or unhappy while being richer than Bill Gates. However, it's equally possible for things to be the other way around, so saying that technology is worthless because it doesn't necessarily make us happy is simply stupid.

[Giancarlo]

There might be some inefficiencies, but large scale communism has been attempted and has worked. By the time the USSR became industrialized (the problem with the USSR is that is wasn't industrialized, it made the transition from feudalism to communism without the capitalism) and stabilized, the people didn't starve. The people in Cuba don't starve either.

No communism has never been attempted and has never worked. As for the rest of your post, I think it is mainly undeveloped, and misinformed. Capitalism has done far more for man-kind then communism ever has. In fact communism has done nothing at all.

Also, I take that correction on my math. That was my mistake. I'm not a f--king math professor.

And additionally it seems like you know nothing about Latin America or its history. How somebody can call Ortega democratic is beyond me.. it's ignorant. Ortega is a rapist (raped his step-daughter I believe), and is a dictator who murdered thousands.

You are the one with a logic of child. Your beliefs are highly immature, misinformed, undeveloped and downright wrong.

[Stefu]

Free market != capitalism

Troo

[Drogue]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
It sure as hell would be way better than what we have now, and it deserves a try.

No it wouldn't, it would be a disaster, and would make *everyone* poor. It would be so inefficient it would negate any gains you could make. Now small scale communism, co-operatives and the like, then working together could do it better, and fairer, but that would be under a capitalist system. Co-operation is possible in capitalism, but communism on a worldwide scale would end up in everyone beign poor, through massive inefficiency.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
You can improve the third world, but not everyone can be rich. The only way we can live in such a manner is because of the third world. You can't have the rich without the poor. If we start improving the third world, allowing them to become core nations instead of dependent nations, and allowing them to regulate their own economies, and allowing them to have economies that are self-sufficient and not single-product, the first world will really take a hit. And anway the nations with more resources will always be way more rich than nations like Haiti, who don't have anything to base an economy on.

Two things. Firstly, yes, no-one would be rich, in that they wouldn't be massively richer compared to the 3rd world. However the 3rd world being developed would give us trading partners, and would not lead to us having a lower quality of life at all. We can have the same quality of life without a 3rd world, as exploiting the 3rd world only helps us in the short term. Thinking long term, we *want* a richer and more developed 3rd world.

Secondly, the latter is actually not true. There is a known phenomenon called the resource trap, whereby countries without natural resources of note develop faster than those with it. Generall it is believed this is because countries with resources squander money on trying to realise them, while those without use aid and other money to industrialise and develop, meaning in the long term they do better. Know one knows exactly why it happens, however it is so well documented we know that it does happen. Zambia is a prime example, having copper and other metal resources, but being poorer than many of it's neighbours that don't have such resources. If I can find it I'll put up the article I wrote on it, as development economics is one of my main academic interests.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
And I am not communist. I am non-capitalist. There is a difference. I have just been using the term 'communism' in my arguments because that is the term Giancarlo is using. I think that in any system there has to be incentive. If you don't work, you should be punished. You also should be allowed to better yourself if you feel like it. Those who work harder would get more money that was to be spent on luxury goods. The necessities would be provided for.

Oh I agree competely. I'm al for a government system whereby there is a minimum quality of life: There is basic healthcare, education, housing and food for everyone, and when you work, you get more, and can buy luxuries. However that won't work yet in the thrid world. Until they've developed, they don't have any decent healthcare or education. First they need, as is happening, for jobs to be going abroad, for their efficiencies with low wages to compete and beat the developed world, and then wages will rise, and they can start to provide amenities. Some economic development must happen first though, and when we remove all our unfair subsidies, they will do.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
There might be some inefficiencies, but large scale communism has been attempted and has worked. By the time the USSR became industrialized (the problem with the USSR is that is wasn't industrialized, it made the transition from feudalism to communism without the capitalism) and stabilized, the people didn't starve. The people in Cuba don't starve either.

But the former Eastern Bloc countries became much richer when they capitalised, especially those that did it quickly, like the Czech Republic. They have a better quality of life than they did under communism. Similarly, I would wager that Cubans would have a better quality of life as capitalists, after a short transition period. Just because they don't starve, doesn't mean it's better than the alternative.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
You seem to talk about technology as if it benefits mankind so much. It is a common myth. Sure it may make life a little more convenient, but it really doesn't make us happier. Do you think people are much happier than they were in 1950 because they have bigger TVs? Logic tells us that if we have nicer things our life will be better. But that isn't the way things work with humans. If it was true, America would be full of happy people. No one would ever be sad, depressed, suicidal, or ever feel like life is empty, superficial, pointless, or meaningless. But this is not the case. Once you have a reasonably comfortable and decent lifestyle, you can't do much more materialistically to make life better. I know a lot of poor people who don't have a lot of technology that are way happier than the rich people. Material things don't buy happiness. We are more advanced then ever, yet we aren't getting any happier.

Very true. As I believe I read a study on a year or two ago, once a country bcomes richer than a relatively developed nation like Portugal, it doesn't get happier the richer it gets. However, in that society, those that have less are unhappy. It's all about keeping up the Jones's, with relative wealth. Having said that, if you were to take away all the mod cons we currently enjoy, we would, as a nation, become less happy, as we are used to this. Life *is* meaningless to anyone who doesn't have a religion or somesuch to believe in, and improving things doesn't have the affect, as there is always something we don't have. However removing things would cause unhappiness. Better medicine affects many peoples lives. I know I'd be a lot unhappier if someone took away my migraine medication, and I know I'd be a lot happier if there was a cure for diabetes. It's all on a personal level, but improved technology, as opposed to improved wealth, does make people happier, if asked to choose. However because people get used to it, unless it's taken away, they don't see the improvement it's made for them. I was reading a book called Happiness Economics the other day which explained it much better than I could. Well worth a read, especially for anyone remotely utilitarian.

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I will not waste any more time on Giancarlo's posts. He has the logic of a child, and I will probably get dumber by arguing with him. Somehow Allende, a democratically elected president, and Ortega, another democratic president, are thugs and murderers and General Somoza is okay. If you want, you can tell everyone that you beat me in the argument. I really don't care. I don't need to waste any more time doing this to prove to myself that I am fed up with this rotten system.

The system may be rotten, but that isn't the capitalist system, or the free market one. That's the corrupted system of capitalism that is practiced by the US and the EU predominatly. Moreover, I dispute that someone being democratically elected de facto makes them better. If people had perfect knowledge of the repurcussions of someone's actions, then possibly, but they don't, and as such, someone being popular doesn't make them good at the job.

I agree with you with the distaste for US foreign policy, but don't blame capitalism for the US's actions, any more than we should blame communism for Stalin's regime.

[VetLegion]

Chilean President,

I've been surfing a little but have found no consensus - what is the common opinion in Chile and the world of the economic policies of the Chichago Boys? Overall positive, negative, or what?

Also, how did Chile stand in economic comparison with other South American countries before the coup?

[Ned]

johnc, you are obviously falling into dark side of the force. You think Marxism is good. You are a fool.