Socialist landslide in Portugal!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
He didn't claim that. If I should apologise it's only one word, "only", which I used as emphasis, but which's meaning is incorrect in my sentence.

Correct, and you can hardly take issue with someone disagreeing with your statement, since that one word rendered what you said false.

Molly did not write what You claim He did, He just replied "how many times did he (Usama) vote?"
which I read as denying of Usama's influence on the elections. Perhaps it was not intended, even Molly has some common sense I guess, perhaps He wanted to temper my opinion - and then, and only then, He'd be right, but if that's what He's ment, He should've done it in a clear way, not in a blurry sarcastic way that He did.

You're right, he didn't say that, but it is I'm sure implicit in his comment.

At any rate, the point stands that there's little evidence that Bin Laden is the one responsible for the conservative downfall. In fact, as that article I linked to shows, they were the architects of their own demise.

Even if the partial responsibility for electing the smaheful Zapateronians rests on Aznar's handling of the case, it is only result of the primary action, that is terrorist attack. I do not deny it. My point stays.

Except that, as my article points out, the conservatives were already possibly heading to defeat before the attacks. There was already a scandal wrt to theit handling of the oil spill.

Also, if You read my posts with attention, You' find out that in fact, I didn't deny that what gouverment did didn't have any influence. But some voted for socialists of cowardice, it is obvious.

When you said "only," you were implicitley making such a denial.

And how is it "obvious?" I am eager to hear what support you had that anyone voted out of "cowardice" in the wake of the attacks. As noted above, people voted against the conservatives because the government had lied to them.

And the rise of votes for socialists after it was said it wasn't ETA that conducted the attacks can be explained both by the gouverment's behaviour and by that only then it was clear that it had to do with Spanish presence in Iraq.

90% of Spain's population opposed going to war in Iraq. So saying that the attacks somehow magically changed formerly pro-conservative people into socialist voters is simply not true. Again, conservative poll numbers had slipped even before the attacks.

No matter what, backing of from Iraq by Zapatero, if really it didn't (unlike much of its support) come of cowardice, but naivity of pacifism or populism, it will be seen as such by the terrorists and by the world in general and that's white the right thing to do was to let the forces stay precisely because the attack has happened.

I don't see why the misperception of others about the reasons for voting out the conservatives should matter. Why should people vote for a government that has committed wrongful acts that the people oppose? That's almost Orwellian reasoning.

The misguided and naive position would precisely be to keep supporting a government like Anzar's out of a misguided since of jingoistic pride.

Is it sure it was a lie, and not fooling themselves as well as the rest?

See above. The conservatives continued to insist it was ETA even after it had been decisively concluded it was Al Queda. Aq had even claimed responsibility, yet the government kept saying ETA. They desperately wanted it to be ETA because their tough anti-ETA stance would then help them in the vote.

Also, what I've written above: it's a secondary thing. Without the attack, there would be no question if the gouverment lied or not.
And even without the lie, the support for conservatives would fall.

This is a non-issue, since as showed above, their support had faltered before the attacks. The lie about the attacks is icing on the cake, but it wasn't the first bout of dishonesty they had been caught in.

But I do like your crystal ball view--that you seem to know what would have happened even without the government lie. Say, what are the winning lottery numbers this week?

[Heresson]

When you said "only," you were implicitley making such a denial.

As I've mentioned, I didn't mean "only" by "only"
"And the gouverment would have fallen even if it hadn't lied, simply because people are generally cowards" also I've written, by which I accepted the fact that it had some influence.

And how is it "obvious?" I am eager to hear what support you had that anyone voted out of "cowardice" in the wake of the attacks. As noted above, people voted against the conservatives because the government had lied to them.

It would be unreasonable to not think that if the gouverment does sth that 90% of people do not support, it doesn't lose any votes.

But I do like your crystal ball view--that you seem to know what would have happened even without the government lie. Say, what are the winning lottery numbers this week?

5,17,8,33,41,5
I see it clearly, just I don't know in which state.

Don't You claim yourself that the conservatives were heading for a failure anyway?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If a virus wiped out your bank account with no trace, would you have lost real wealth?

Money gives you the power to buy things and so you command labor. As long as the work is done there is no loss in wealth. Someone consumes the products even if it isn't you. Money isn't wealth. It's only a way of determining who will get the wealth, which is products.

edit: I include services as products, because 'know how' is also wealth. So not all wealth is tangible. You can have an abundance of facilities for production, but if you don't know how to use them they are worthless.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If a virus wiped out your bank account with no trace, would you have lost real wealth?

That's entirely different.

Suppose Google is $300 per share, while it's 0 before the IPO. Where did the money come from? Suppose MS does a stock swap to buy another company for 20m by issuing new stocks. Where did the money come from?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heresson
Is it sure it was a lie, and not fooling themselves as well as the rest?

Yes, because the Socialist Workers found out that the government was withholding evidence that AQ was behind the attack. Since the government had evidence and was withholding it, it is reasoable to conclude that the government believed one thing and said another.

As for whether the bombing itself would have affected the outcome of the election, we can only speculate. However, if other elections around the world are anything to go by, when a country is attacked, people tend to rally around the government in power, not toss it out of office.

While the bombing was the event that caused the Spanish governmnet to lie, it was the lie, not the bombing, that caused the government to be remoeved from office. The bombing was the catalyst, not the cause.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's entirely different.

Suppose Google is $300 per share, while it's 0 before the IPO. Where did the money come from?

The money hasn't come from anywhere, yet. Money doesn't appear until someone pays for the stock. Like any other commodity, value is only realized when someone actually pays for the item or service.

Your money only has value when it is exchanged. Until you use it in the act of exchange, it is only potential wealth, just like the value bound up in any other commodity. If the government falls, your money loses its value. Inflation causes your money to lose its value. Where did the wealth go? The same place stock wealth disappears to when stock prices collapse.

Both you and comrade kicidicous are fetishising the exchange value of tangible goods. You are forgetting the wealth is not an inherent property of an object, but an assigned property and one which measures the relationships between human beings. The fact that these relationships are ephemeral, intangible, and subject to conscious change doesn't mean they aren't socially real.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Oerdin


To compare relative efficiencies of economic systems one could look at the relative prosparity of West Germany compared to East Germany or North Korea compared to South Korea. One system clearly out performs the other.

Clearly?

Numbers play games

From the UN (http://snipurl.com/bj2o):

[SnowFire]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's entirely different.

Suppose Google is $300 per share, while it's 0 before the IPO. Where did the money come from? Suppose MS does a stock swap to buy another company for 20m by issuing new stocks. Where did the money come from?

The money didn't "come from" anyway. To use what you & Kidicious seem to be saying, the ethereal value of Google was there before (from labor, whatever). You are getting a piece of Google & its future earnings in exchange for some hard cash right now. It's a trade.

Suppose I have an apple tree in my backyard. I say that you can have an apple from it every year if you give me three oranges right now. That's very roughly a share of stock. (And if the stock market / apple contract dissapeared tomorrow, and I stopped giving you apples, you'd have lost something direct and tangible- your apple every year.) Granted, most trading on stocks only has a vague bearing on the original intent of stocks, as it's more betting on the direction a stock will take, but the core is the same.

[Bosh]

You have a problem explaining why DPRK was doing better than RoK up until the 1970s.

Easy:
-Rhee Syngman was an idiot.
-The NKoreans cooked their books worse than the SKoreans.
-Way way way more than half of the natural resources and industry in Korea at the end of WWII were in the North.
-The South got trashed worse than the North in the Korean war. Seoul has almost completely destroyed.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson

Here, You deny the fact that the tragedy in Madrid seriously changed the result of last Spanish elections...
What can I say?

Ignoring all the irrelevant guff you've included (I don't 'base' my knowledge on any websites, thanks)-

You could offer a serious analysis of electoral outcomes in Spain based on votes made after terrorist bombings.


Spain, as you seem to be hugely unaware of, has had a serious terrorist problem with Basque Separatists, a very violent and bloody civil war and assassinations of political figures. Violence isn't something new to Spain.

Yet you would have us believe, based, as far as anyone can tell from the lack of facts in your post, on thin air or a hunch, that suddenly Spanish voters decided to vote for a Socialist government (which they had done in the past curiously enough, seemingly without the prompting of Muslim terrorist bombings) because of a bombing in Madrid.

It's frankly rather insulting to Spanish voters to assume they can't think for themselves or make rational decisions based on their political beliefs instead of fear.



Congratulations, you have yoked together 1 and 2 and come up with 8.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Both you and comrade kicidicous are fetishising the exchange value of tangible goods. You are forgetting the wealth is not an inherent property of an object, but an assigned property and one which measures the relationships between human beings. The fact that these relationships are ephemeral, intangible, and subject to conscious change doesn't mean they aren't socially real.

If money is wealth than why don't we just print a bunch of it and solve all of our problems. Money is not wealth. It can only be used to determine who uses and consumes wealth. This is why Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, because people believed like you do. They thought that wealth was money. Wealth is production.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If money is wealth than why don't we just print a bunch of it and solve all of our problems.

Because, comrade, as I stated before, exchange value is not an inherent property of things. If you had all the turnips in the world and no one wanted them, you would not be wealthy. You'd be poor with a lot of turnips. On the other hand, if I created a chegitz credit, which was nothing more than a slip of paper and/or some cells in a ledger, and everyone wanted them, I'd be wealthy.

Stock equals wealth because people act as though it does. And if people act as if you are wealthy, you are.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom
(I don't 'base' my knowledge on any websites, thanks)

In the case of western Ukraine You apparenty did, which wouldn't be too bad if not that You've misinterpreted the source You were using.

Spain, as you seem to be hugely unaware of, has had a serious terrorist problem with Basque Separatists

You've realy enlightened me


If You wanted to say by it that Spaniards are not cowards because they fight Basque terrorists etc,
the case is competely different. In the case of Basque lands (Euskadia?), Spaniards are fighting for their own interest. It's not quite the case in Iraq.
Also, ALL people are cowards, including yours truely.
Just not in the all questions. And if a referendum was held in Poland in that matter, it would retreat as well.

Yet you would have us believe, based, as far as anyone can tell from the lack of facts in your post, on thin air or a hunch, that suddenly Spanish voters decided to vote for a Socialist government (which they had done in the past curiously enough, seemingly without the prompting of Muslim terrorist bombings) because of a bombing in Madrid.

I don't base my view on think air. The gouverment was doing something extremly unpopular in its state, which the other main party promesses to stop doing. Even if the terrorist attack hadn't taken place, the all "war against terror"/Iraqi case would drag the conservatives down, more or less.

It's frankly rather insulting to Spanish voters to assume they can't think for themselves or make rational decisions based on their political beliefs instead of fear.

Retreat from Iraq is not a rational decision.
It can only come of egoism, fear or naivity.
While I can understood ones that were against started the war, and I agree with them to some extent, I have no respect for ones that want ro retreat now.

Congratulations, you have yoked together 1 and 2 and come up with 8.

I'm your faithful student.

[Timexwatch]

Jumping into the Spain discussion:

Anyone who was in Spain at the time of the last elections can verify that there were fairly large demonstrations in front of PP offices around Spain before the elections, despite restrictions on political activity on the eve of elections. People were outraged that despite the rest of the European media saying that it was Islamic terrorism, the Spanish government was continuing to state that it was an ETA attack, despite the evidence.

Spaniards, by and large, are no strangers to terrorism. Between ETA and GRAPO, they have had to deal with it for over 25 years. The attack was heinous, but it did not provoke the same amount of fear and panic that an attack like this in the U.S. would cause. People did not shy away from the images of the bombing. The front page of La Vanguardia, IIRC, had a picture of a corpse in the wreckage as it's front page picture. Spaniards aren't the excessively hand-wringing sissys that Americans are.

Also, Iraq wasn't a terribly contentious issue. Somewhere between 80-90% of Spaniards were against the deployment of Spanish troops in Iraq. It was not, however, as big of a deal that they were there. Spanish society is very anti-militaristic. The deaths of Spanish soldiers were noted rather "matter of fact-ly" on most news broadcasts. There was more sympathy for the anti-terrorist officers who were killed when the remaining members of the terrorist cell blew up their own apartment as it was being raided.

It irks me, as an American living in Spain at the time, that so many Americans and others misinterpret the consequences of the Atocha bombing. The gulf between fact and the fiction portrayed in the American media only serves to show how poor American news coverage is and how much it has been subverted to serve governmental ends.

[Boris Godunov]

Herreson: Wait, you've changed arguments.

What you're saying about why the voters went against the Spanish government doesn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with Bin Laden, which was the issue taken with your original post.

So it seems, from your last post, you are reversing course and saying it wasn't Bin Laden who ushered the socialists into power, but rather longstanding public disapproval of the conservative government's policies and actions. That's precisely the point we've been making.

Your definition of "cowardice" is virtually meaningless. By that standard, voting for any side is done out of cowardice, in some form or another. Big insight there.