|
| Thread: North Korea-war? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
posted January 21, 2003 11:50 PM |
|
|
Got exams in a week so I can't give a very long response here but:
Quote:
It really wasn’t till the world wars that people woke up to the fact that human nature is not to be trusted. Still the practice continues in many schools of secularism and humanism, but the fact remains that people have over and over and over shown that human nature is anything but to be trusted. Our wars prove that…our families who beat their young prove that…our individuals prove that when they literally kill someone to get steal their name brand shoes…etc. etc. I could obviously go on for pages about this one.
That's why I said modern society. I trust in human nature because if it cannot be trusted than nothing can. Those points you mention do exist, but have you ever thought it might be not because of human nature but because of society and education? If you keep saying it will never be possible to have a society in which human nature can be trusted then it will never happen, but if you keep trying to get to that point I believe that the results will not be as bad as you think.
Quote:
Also not to mention all the huge amount of money Israel gets from America’s government and private citizens. Israel is a great country but they are on national welfare to say least!
That's true, of course, but I was making a statement about the human nature in those societies and not only their economic situation. It appears that people from those little towns have a very good nature and are very hard working. If you get someone who has the kind of nature that you claim to be the reason communist societies will never work, he will not be accepted by the general public.
Quote:
Most countries have free education…that is a non-point. Also please name for me all the great inventions, poetry, philosophy, psychology that came out of communist Russia say compared to the USA…there is absolutely no comparison…so it would appear for all the education you mention it didn’t seem to do them or the world much good.
You are right about the inventions etc. and those things came from the education (among other facotrs, too) so this is one thing they did to the world that was good. Also, those educated in the USSR are now hard working people with superior skills working in Russia and other countries. They are doing much good. The musicians and artists of the USSR created great works of art and music, would you not say it is good for the world?
As we know, the USSR collapsed but I am quite confident that it's not because of their education but because of the US and the world disliking them (when the US dislikes someone, it's very hard for him to stay around).
Quote:
Ummm in the USA people who are poor definitely also don’t have it unbearable. Also I don’t know about unbearable when the USSR had technology that bordered on backwards, food lines were commonplace, food shortage was a regular companion, etc.
I don't know about you, but I find homeless people to have a life that should not be lived by a human living in a prosperous country. And the USSR did not have much food, but everybody had an equal amount and it was definatly enough to live a normal life.
Quote:
Hmm maybe you haven’t heard about all the money American’s give out of their own pocketbook to help the less fortunate
Would you say that every single American millioner gives huge donations to the public? And I was referring to sharing the wealth among your own country, not around the world.
Quote:
Hmm guess you didn’t know that most of Americas millionaires were not born into rich families…the examples are endless. And who on God’s green earth are you to judge that because they are poor they can’t live a normal life??? Good grief….I would argue that there are many poor who actually live a more normal life then the rich because they know the real value of life…love, family, connection, etc….they aren’t enslaved to the consumerism of the rich…they can live a simple and happy life. History is replete with examples of poor people who lived very rich lives. Money does not and never will equate into happiness.
I see that you misunderstand my definition of "poor". By that word I don't mean people with a lousy job living in a small apartment with hardly enough money to support their family. That's normal. I mean those who have no job, no money, and no food at all. You see plenty of those on the streets and I don't think they have a chance to live a normal life with their family.
Quote:
Why on earth would the USA…one of the strongest examples of capitalism also be the most successful nation in the world?
Why were ancient Greece, Rome or the Chinese Dynasty the strongest countries in the world? Just because some of those cultures had monarchies does that mean it's the correct system? Just because the US is strong now, doesn't mean it will remain so forever, and just because the US is strong doesn't mean it's because of Capitalism.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 22, 2003 07:06 AM |
|
|
Quote
“I blame Bush senior for not doing the blatantly obvious and finishing what he started”
What he started was the liberation of Kuwait not the regime change of Iraq…so that is a misstatement. Also Bush was the major leader to rouse the world to take action against the invasion. To my memory I never remember him stating that the mission was to replace Saddam…so evidently he did finish the job he started. Maybe he didn’t finish the job that you and I would of liked him to finish…but he did finished the job he set out to do.
Quote
“especially since at least Britain wished to (but couldn't alone with the small numbers of troops they had on the ground).”
Well why didn’t the UK lead the way and raise up the arms of the world? Why must the role of rallying the world always fall on the USA?
Quote
“If clinton's government screwed up, you're clear in blaming clinton personally, I just added the same thought to the conclusion that Bush Snr screwed up the gulf war. He takes the blame because that goes with running the country.”
So by that definition the UK PM screwed up cause they also didn’t see it through to completion. You can’t always fall back upon…”oh we don’t have enough forces”…you can create alliances and lead the charge.
Quote
“As for GWB I blame him for this war because I doubt that without him and his supporters no-one would be bothering to try this farce of a war on "terror".”
So first you blame the first Bush for not building support for regime change and now you blame GWB for creating an alliance to do it??? Man this gets very confusing.
Quote
“For that matter, hell go the whole hog and blame the turks for subjecting these people before WWI, the british and french for creating the political situation and the Israelis for being the major reason for the arab world's hatred.”
That was chuckle worthy
Quote
“That's why I said modern society. I trust in human nature because if it cannot be trusted than nothing can.”
You sentiment is right…. nothing and nobody can be completely trusted except God.
Quote
“not because of human nature but because of society and education?”
But human nature creates society and education. Ever since Dewey there has been an enormous push to educate. The philosophy was education leads to enlightenment…enlightenment leads to positive and trustworthy human action. The problem is we are largely educated as a world…and yet we still can not be fully trusted..because it works against a law of nature…human nature is depraved.
Quote
“It appears that people from those little towns have a very good nature and are very hard working.”
I find those Jewish establishments interesting…I need to study them further. But I would tend to believe that if they work it is for three reasons…one they are small…two they are voluntary…and three there is a strong religious tradition that binds them to a calling higher than themselves. Correct me if I a wrong cause I don’t know that much about them.
Quote
“The musicians and artists of the USSR created great works of art and music, would you not say it is good for the world?’
Yes it would be good…but I haven’t heard of many and by comparison with capitalist countries there really isn’t any comparison. The central great contributors from Russia came before communism….Tolstoy (sp?), Dostoevsky, etc.
Quote
“(when the US dislikes someone, it's very hard for him to stay around).”
Why if communism is superior to capitalism? It would seem the other way around if communism was actually better than capitalism.
Quote
“Would you say that every single American millioner gives huge donations to the public? And I was referring to sharing the wealth among your own country, not around the world.”
I haven’t read statistics on that specifically…but there is huge amount of money being given to Salvation Army, various missions which feed and cloth the poor, Red Cross, pregnancy centers, camps for children who are removed from their parents, gifts for kids whose parents are in prison, counseling for people in need of psychotherapy, etc, etc. So there are numerous charity organizations that benefit our own people that are supported solely by Americans.
Quote
“I mean those who have no job, no money, and no food at all.”
See that is a misperception…there is food and money for everyone in America…we continually supply it. Many of the “homeless” are people who get these services but are addicted to some substance (which we offer free treatment for) and therefore choose to not become employed and enter regular society. Believe me in my career and personal volunteer work I have worked with many of them.
Quote
“Just because the US is strong now, doesn't mean it will remain so forever, and just because the US is strong doesn't mean it's because of Capitalism.”
You are correct…there is no way to prove a cause/effect. But there still is a huge correlation. Will the USA remain strong forever…doubtful as socialism has been creeping in and our cultural values are declining.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 22, 2003 11:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well why didn’t the UK lead the way and raise up the arms of the world? Why must the role of rallying the world always fall on the USA?
Because America was actively campaigning amongst the remaining allied nations for the ending of the campaign, leaving only the british and the possibility of the french to launch an invasion with barely 40,000 troops. Saudi Arabia had already made clear their intention not to support such a cause as they feared their own extremists overthrowing them in the event of an uprising amongst the population of Iraq. Without Saudi Arabia where would the invasion base itself from? No alliance can fight when the majority of it's troops have left and are actively against further action and the base for an invasion was also against action.
Besides the last time we did anything without your permission or support you whinged and sulked about us not telling you over the suez crisis and forced the UN with russian support to make us rethink. There's a damn good chance the same reaction from you would of occured had we dared to go against your precious wishes and invaded.
Quote:
To my memory I never remember him stating that the mission was to replace Saddam…
Then he and those who agreed whole-heartedly with him were short sighted fools, after short term victories and not looking to the long term consequences.
Quote:
and now you blame GWB for creating an alliance to do it???
That's not what I said, I said I blame him for starting/threatening wars he should not be doing, not for creating an alliance to do so, but for planning such madcap wars in the 1st place. And also for trying to make this into a war on "global terror" when it's nothing like a "global" war and everything about american interests. His job perhaps, but lets not pretend it's a global thing when all he cares for is America.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 22, 2003 04:35 PM |
|
|
Capitalism (here, it appears, meaning private ownership of means of production and more or less unregulated market economies and smallish government) is a useful tool and many aspects of capitalism are, overall, beneficial, however, neither it nor the more extreme objectivism are end all panaceas.
It has been pointed out that the US, a generally, but not, it must be noted, completely "capitalist" is one of the richest and most powerful in the world. This begs the question of why there are nations that are generally considered to have more socialist leanings who have higher per capita GNP than the US - for instance, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and Japan (I believe Luxembourg as well, but I couldn't find the numbers for Luxembourg). If more capitalism == more wealth and more socialism == less wealth, than what is going on with these particular nations?
A further question is raised by quality of life indicators, such as Life Expectancy (the statistics I am citing are from the world health organization) the top ten are : Japan, Australia, France, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Monaco, and Andorra. The US? 24th. It should be noted that most of the nations above the US have socialized medicine. Yeah, that system really sucks doesn't it. Too bad they don't have our 24th ranked free market medical coverage. And before you start claiming that "oh, well all their people come to the US to get health care" ask yourself how enough could possibly come to affect overall life expectancy. And before you start saying "well, in social medicine you have to wait so long to see a doctor," go call up a few specialists in the US and try to make an appointment for tomorrow.
(Note: The WHO statistics refer to "healthy life expectancy" the only absolute life expectancy statistics I could find were from http:/http://www.os-connect.com. I didn't know what that source was, so I chose to use WHO instead since they are probably more reliable. The US actually does much worse in the absolute life expectancy rankings -- 42nd, behind such cutting edge nations as Jordan)
Now, I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that Capitalism causes poverty. That is absolutely, completely 100% false. There really isn't such a thing as a "cause of poverty" other than birth. The question you have to ask is what are the "causes of wealth?" Capitalism is not a cause of wealth. Aspects of capitalism, properly applied and regulated can allow the creation of wealth, but in and of itself, capitalism does not create wealth.
People create wealth.
However, they need a lot of aspects of socialism and big government to do so. They need to be educated and more than just the elites need to be educated. Even if you honestly believe that the voucher system would work better, that still involves government funding. There needs to be infrastructure in place -- ie, roads and airports. These are not private ventures (as The Economist, (Dec 21st, 2002, p. 39) a quite conservative (from an economic perspective) put it "The private sector does not, however spontaneously provide roads, because the beneficiaries cannot easily be charged. Tolls can meet some of the cost of maintaining highways, but it is hard to squeeze money out of... feeder roads."). They need to be healthy, healthy workers == productive worker ( or, at the very least, unhealthy worker == unproductive worker). Part of this includes medical care, but another part includes environmental protection and workplace safety standards as well as things like the FDA to ensure that unsafe products are not being sold. Perhaps medical care could be done privately, I think the balance of evidence is that it is apparently working better in nations with socialized medicine, but the others require government oversight(Workplace safety standards do not come about voluntarily -- witness the coal mining industry.) There needs to be government oversight to at least help to prevent fraud. Big government. FDIC insurance is very important to a stable banking system and the stable economy that comes with it, and that is a decidedly socialist invention.
Anyway, all I'm saying is that it isn't the dichotomy that people like to make it out to be, healthy, wealthy societies need aspects of both socialism and capitalism to work properly.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted January 22, 2003 11:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that Capitalism causes poverty. That is absolutely, completely 100% false. There really isn't such a thing as a "cause of poverty" other than birth. The question you have to ask is what are the "causes of wealth?" Capitalism is not a cause of wealth. Aspects of capitalism, properly applied and regulated can allow the creation of wealth, but in and of itself, capitalism does not create wealth.
Maybe Capitalism doesn't cause poverty, but Communism and Socialism prevents it. So you could easily say that those people who are poor in the US won't be poor in the old USSR.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 23, 2003 12:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe Capitalism doesn't cause poverty, but Communism and Socialism prevents it. So you could easily say that those people who are poor in the US won't be poor in the old USSR.
Not necessarily -- if there isn't enough to begin with, distributing everything equally won't keep people from poverty. Think about North Korea.
Also, wanting to distribute things equally doesn't necessarily equal distributing things equally if the infrastructure isn't present to do so. Think about Ethiopia during their famous famine, the problem was in getting food to people, not in having enough food overall.
Distribution aside, the wealth still needs to be created. Regulated capitalism and capitalism/socialism hybrids have a much better record of creating wealth to be distributed than pure communism or socialism do.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted January 23, 2003 12:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not necessarily -- if there isn't enough to begin with, distributing everything equally won't keep people from poverty. Think about North Korea.
North Korea is not a good example because the wealth is distributed so unevenly that it is more capitalist than communist (I mean, the Kim dude has a richer lifestyle than most capitalist millionairs). And there might well be enough wealth to go around, as long as the country does not focus so much about weapons and military and put more funds into food.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2003 06:44 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Because America was actively campaigning amongst the remaining allied nations for the ending of the campaign,
I don’t remember that…maybe it is right but I really don’t remember the USA doing that…you have any sources about that that I could look at?
Quote
“Besides the last time we did anything without your permission or support you whinged and sulked about us not telling you over the suez crisis and forced the UN with russian support to make us rethink.”
So let me see…we want to do something and you all yell, scream, and cry that we must get UN approval. You want to do something that we don’t and we sulk? So we have to get permission and you don’t?
As far as an invasion of Iraq earlier…lets even suppose that you are right that the USA was against it…I say who cares…you got to do what you think is right which is the same reason I think it was dumb for the USA to have to get UN approval for the current Iraq situation. Countries must maintain their sovereignty and moral compass.
Quote
“Then he and those who agreed whole-heartedly with him were short sighted fools, after short term victories and not looking to the long term consequences.”
Maybe…but hindsight is 20/20. Also the goal that was achieved was a great thing…the liberation of Kuwait…the other issue involved invading a sovereign nation. While I think we should of invaded… there is also a lot of wisdom in not invading (giving a nation a second chance, historical lessons from NK, the mismanagement of Vietnam war, etc.). I don’t think it quite as simple as “short sighted”
Quote
“And also for trying to make this into a war on "global terror" when it's nothing like a "global" war and everything about american interests.”
I don’t know how the first time was global and the second is not global? Has he become less dangerous in the last 10 years? I think not. Has he violated global UN mandates? I think so
Quote
“ His job perhaps, but lets not pretend it's a global thing when all he cares for is America.”
We only care about America? So I guess all the times that we have liberated other countries from annihilation, and given more humanitarian aid to any other nation…we only care about ourselves? Bush cares only for America as much as every leader only cares about their nation.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2003 06:51 AM |
|
|
Quote
“This begs the question of why there are nations that are generally considered to have more socialist leanings who have higher per capita GNP than the US - for instance, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark and Japan (I believe Luxembourg as well, but I couldn't find the numbers for Luxembourg). If more capitalism == more wealth and more socialism == less wealth, than what is going on with these particular nations?”
Yahoo world fact book states “The US has the most technologically powerful, diverse, advanced, and largest economy in the world”. As far as GDP real growth (1999 est.)- USA has 4.1%, Norway has .8%, Denmark has 1.3% Switzerland has 1.8% and Japan has .3%. As far as GDP per capita USA has 34K Norway has 25K, Denmark has 24K Switzerland has 27K and Japan has 23K. Also to my knowledge Japan is very capitalistic. So this seems to paint a very different picture and shows USA has the strongest economy. Now I am sure that different years may show differences (recessions and such) but these are the ones I found in the Yahoo World Fact book. Furthermore the Per capita earnings that were shown in WHO indicate that the USA has the highest amount of per capita earnings…5K over the next closest (Switzerland and Norway).
Quote
“However, they need a lot of aspects of socialism and big government to do so.”
Well first off I am not a libertarian so I do agree that there needs to be government to assist capitalism and safety (no one here is arguing against roads, defense, limited medical help for the poor, FDA, and providing for an education). But as far as socialism and big government…that I do not concur. Even JFK…the patron saint of the democrats knew that you have to cut tax rates to improve the countries economy…and thus he cut the tax rates.
Take California (also known as the LEFT coast) the great state I live in….we have a 35 billion deficit….what brought us here….spending…our government in the last 4 years increased its spending 33% while inflation and immigration (additional costs for the government increased 21%). If we just cut back our spending by 9% for only 18 months our deficit would disappear….but no we have democrats who control everything here and thus they want to not cut enough, only cut some and tax more. Sure the country is in a mild recession…but that is when you tighten your belt and cut spending. And before you bring up the USA being in deficit…yeah that is true…but 9/11 had a horrific effect upon the overall economy and there too we need to cut back spending. Even Bush needs to learn to say no and not spend so much.
Quote
“Perhaps medical care could be done privately, I think the balance of evidence is that it is apparently working better in nations with socialized medicine”
We don’t have capitalistic medicine..that is one of our problems. The medical associations/organizations/lobbiests limit how many doctors can be trained..thus we haven’t had a new medical training institution in ages (and they actively fight to stop them from opening)….they also fight like dogs to keep any less experienced licensees created (i.e. why don’t we have a specialty that fixes broken bones…take a year of school and that is all they do…you don’t need to be an MD to fix a broken bone, other examples are numerous). The medical community needs to become much humanitarian and less territorial.
Quote
“North Korea is not a good example because the wealth is distributed so unevenly that it is more capitalist than communist”
That is the point…communism doesn’t and can’t work without a dictator…and dictators by definition regard themselves and their interests above everyone else…so you have a much worse inequality then capitalism could even begin to formulate.
See you have an incorrect definition of capitalism….capitalism has nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth…it has to do with tapping into man’s own self interest which results in his benefit and the betterment of mankind. For instance…Medicine companies want to earn a great living…so they invest millions in research and create AIDS meds which in turn help the whole world. Or bill Gates wants to be rich…so he creates an affordable computer that gets better by the week….thus we all benefit from more information, recreation, etc. Only socialism/communism have to do with the redistribution of wealth. Wherever there are great inventions there is capitalism…wherever there is a deadness in creativity there is socialism/communism. Seriously consider the great inventions/development of the last century (cars, electricity, medicines, airplanes, etc)..where did they predominately originate from….from capitalism and the USA.
Quote
“Not necessarily -- if there isn't enough to begin with, distributing everything equally won't keep people from poverty. Think about North Korea. Also, wanting to distribute things equally doesn't necessarily equal distributing things equally if the infrastructure isn't present to do so. Think about Ethiopia during their famous famine, the problem was in getting food to people, not in having enough food overall.”
Exactly
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted January 26, 2003 01:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
... Or bill Gates wants to be rich…so he creates an affordable computer that gets better by the week….
Of course you forget to mention that other companies already created more affordable and better computers at the time and because of his monopoly he managed to disable all the other companies and eliminate choice among consumers. Had Gates not made his PC, the other companies would have made a far superious product at the same price not long after him.
Quote:
Only socialism/communism have to do with the redistribution of wealth. Wherever there are great inventions there is capitalism…wherever there is a deadness in creativity there is socialism/communism. Seriously consider the great inventions/development of the last century (cars, electricity, medicines, airplanes, etc)..where did they predominately originate from….from capitalism and the USA.
How on earth can you assosiate capitalism with the inventions of the century? Many of those inventions were invented years before communism even existed, and you must note that the USSR did make may greate airplanes and medical develpments but of course they didn't share it with the world (that has nothing to do with communism).
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 26, 2003 05:44 AM |
|
|
First you missed my point. The point is not to salute Bill Gates or not…but that capitalism has created this amazing market. The price of computers is startling…the technology and speed unheard of 10 years ago for 1/10th of the price now. Now whether someone other than Gates could of done it better that remains an hypothetical that can’t be proven. Monopolies of course are a danger in capitalism which are against the law in America.
Quote
“How on earth can you assosiate capitalism with the inventions of the century?”
Easy you look at where the inventors lived and what they produced…easy enough to deduce. America’s capitalism has led to the greatest inventions the world has ever seen beyond compare. Have other markets created things..of course…but they pale in comparison to which capitalism has created. The reason isn’t that American’s are more intelligent, but when a market rewards those who pursue their self interests…then great things are created.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 01:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
“ His job perhaps, but lets not pretend it's a global thing when all he cares for is America.”
Why shouldn't he care about America? Don't other leaders worry about their own countries first? Don't try to pretend that all other leaders are for world peace and the U.S. is holding them back because that is not the case.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 02:04 AM |
|
|
No, but then again most of the european nations don't go around claiming to be fighting an "axis of evil" or trying to claim they are somehow acting for the world's benefit either.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 02:27 AM |
|
|
I don't know it seems to me that they do.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 03:09 AM |
|
|
|
Yeah it seems like "world peace" or "humanitarian missions" are common phrases by most politicians around the globe.
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 07:13 AM |
|
|
Dargon
Quote:
America’s capitalism has led to the greatest inventions the world has ever seen beyond compare. Have other markets created things..of course but they pale in comparison to which capitalism has created.
Seem to me that you are being confined by, but two (mutually non-exclusive) “paradigms?E?EI call them, “the American’s era?Eand “the capitalism era?E As stated by IYY, there too were great inventions before the times of USA and Capitalism, and those inventions were just as “beyond compare?E
Quote:
We don’t have capitalistic medicine...
I think you meant “we don’t have complete capitalistic medicine?E
Quote:
For instance medicine companies want to earn a great living so they invest millions in research and create AIDS meds which in turn help the whole world.
The companies don’t invest millions to help the whole world. That’s only half the story; the other half resides in how those poor African’s are going to obtain the now-available-medicines from those rich capitalists. Perhaps the answer lies in that socialism-capitalism hybrid that bort was talking about...
Edit: Er... excuse me, can anyone teach me how to get rid of those chinese characters?
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 28, 2003 01:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Huh? Have you ever heard of the enlightenment period? Which is ironic because history has shown that at the least they had their heads in the sand about human nature. It really wasn?t till the world wars that people woke up to the fact that human nature is not to be trusted. Still the practice continues in many schools of secularism and humanism, but the fact remains that people have over and over and over shown that human nature is anything but to be trusted. Our wars prove that?our families who beat their young prove that?our individuals prove that when they literally kill someone to get steal their name brand shoes?etc. etc. I could obviously go on for pages about this one.
Isn't one of the crucial tenets of capitalism that allowing human nature to take its course will lead to innovation and a better world for everybody? (you know, all of that self interest stuff?)
It's actually quite funny, go sit around and listen to a die hard capitalist some time:
Ultra-Super-Capitalist : "If people were left alone then they would innovate and create and everything would be perfect forever!"
Which is remarkably similar to the "other" side:
Ultra-Super-Communist : "If people were left alone than they would share and work together and everything would be perfect forever!"
My view, of course is:
Ultra-Super-Bort : "If there were more young ladies around who were willing to remove their clothing, everything would be perfect forever!"
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2003 06:39 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Seem to me that you are being confined by, but two (mutually non-exclusive) “paradigms?E?EI call them, “the American’s era?Eand “the capitalism era?E As stated by IYY, there too were great inventions before the times of USA and Capitalism, and those inventions were just as “beyond compare?”
There have been and most likely always will be (unless Orwell’s book comes true…lol) inventions…with or without capitalism.
The issue I was pointing to is that there is absolutely no comparison between American capitalism and any other form of government in the modern era in regards to inventions and lowering the cost for goods.
Quote
“The companies don’t invest millions to help the whole world. That’s only half the story; the other half resides in how those poor African’s are going to obtain the now-available-medicines from those rich capitalists.”
See here is the issue….AIDS meds which use to cost like $7,000 now cost about $300…that my friend is capitalism at work! Not only does capitalism produce such great things…it lowers the cost more and more every year. No other system on earth can compare to that! Without American capitalism you most likely wouldn’t have AIDs medicine plus when they are finally created they will cost an arm and a leg forever….long live capitalism.
Quote
“Ultra-Super-Capitalist”
Capitalism needs some controls against monopolies, fraud, etc. But the theory of capitalism has produced the highest standard of living ever…even socialist countries benefit from capitalism.
Quote
“Ultra-Super-Bort : "If there were more young ladies around who were willing to remove their clothing, everything would be perfect forever!"
LOL…until they started to tell you to take out the trash and do the dishes
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 06:26 AM |
|
|
AP reported today 2/6/03
“Ri Pyong Gap, a spokesman and deputy director at the North's Foreign Ministry, told London's The Guardian newspaper that the impoverished country was entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the United States.”
NK’s inability to reason and understand what a preemptive strike is all about… is I guess typical for their mindset… but scary none the less.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 12:48 PM |
|
|
So NK has no right to pre-emptive strike someone, but america does?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
