|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
WHAT????
The USA has a serious trade deficit because we import too many consumer goods from other countries. Fortunitly we export some essentials: Food, Weapons, Cotton, and Entertainment. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
But I don't have any documentation to back that up. Do you, WD? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Right now there is a trade deficit in consumer goods. Those things are cyclical. They depend on the value of the dollar compared to other nations currency more then anything else.
But we are still a net exporter in culture. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
When was the cycle Last 'up'?
How far 'down' is it? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
How far 'down' is it? [/quote] Maybe the 1930's recession? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I haven't gotten anyone to yet cite a source on this issue. Raw data, or something close to it, please. No editorials or commentaries otherwise without their own documentation will do. [edited for clarity and formatted to fit your screen] [ May 14, 2003, 20:37: Message edited by: Loser ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
No, the US ran a trade deficit all through the Clinton years. The current deficit is the largest we have ever had, but it's the continuation of a trend that began in 1992 with the end of the Last recession.
The thing is the trade deficit isn't really a good indicator of the health of the country's economy. More often than not our trade deficit goes up in strong economic years because a strong economy means we have more money to buys stuff. However, the TD can go down in good years and up in bad. Our economy can be bad and still be better than our trading partners, and vice versa. The Last year we had a surplus in trade was 1975. Raw Data: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/...ical/gands.pdf One thing I do think is interesting in looking at the chart is how the balance of trade in goods and and the balance of trade in services have moved in opposite directions. It's a good example of the trend of our nation from a production to a service economy. That's a trend that has been going on since the 60s. Geoschmo "I'm not an economist, but I play one in the forum." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ May 14, 2003, 20:45: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html
http://www.awolbush.com/ link about his great military career. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
And yes, we did buy into it. No-one forced us, although I'd disagree with the statement that no propaganda was used. IMHO the whole cold war was little more than a propaganda war, with the US exporting images of big cars, drive-thru movies, shiny white teeth and apparent wealth throughout the 50s and early 60s. The so-called American Dream. But anyway, now that we have bought into (or in the case of younger generations- inherited) the American Dream, a lot of us want out. We spent thousands of years developping our own cultures and so we kind of resent having them sanitised, branded, assimilated into US culture and then sold back to us in a happy meal. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Aloofi, what you are describing ceases to become consumerism and instead becomes coersion. That's a big step to take, even for an evil capitalist corporation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
D, what I still don't understand is your resentment of Americans for suplying you with what you want to buy. It's not propaganda, it's called advertising. And you and your countrymen are free to turn it off any time you wish. I guess I understand though. When you look at your own country and see problems it's much easier and feels better if you can put the blame for it on someone else. Nobody likes being held responsible for our own flaws. Of course maybe that's all part of the American culture you have been infected with. Cause I certainly see that trait among many people on this side of the pond as well. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
A drug addict can be upset at the dealers selling the drugs yet still buying them... Quote:
Many of them feel that we are consuming to much themselfs. There are coperation owners that are decent people.. (Hard to see me writing these things as I used to be a member in the Swedish communist party's youth club, now the "Left Party", whom I still vote on though.) (And no let's not start a commie bashing thread I know all about the atrocities commited by them and the downfalls of the theory!) [ May 15, 2003, 13:32: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Look in a mirror. The consumer is king folks. You want it, if Americans didn't supply it, someone else would. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Here is the problem with some of what has been said.
The minimalist lifestyle is good. But what happens when lots of people adopt it? A drop in demand, resulting in a drop in supply. If no one buys it the companies stop producing it. If they aren't producing it they fire the people making it so they don't lose money while demand is low. So what happens to the fired people? Currently the consumerism is so strongly embedded in most modernized and even developing countries to an extent that if significant numbers of people went against it it would lead to almost total economic collapse. Why? Because that is the system we have and all of our national services and organizations are based on those fundamental ideas. Before you can replace it you have to have an alternative. Cottage industries maybe? As much as I think it sounds good I don't think it is going to happen. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Ruatha: Cooperations are run by people, most of them ordinary people with families and kids. Many of them feel that we are consuming to much themselfs. There are coperation owners that are decent people.. (Hard to see me writing these things as I used to be a member in the Swedish communist party's youth club, now the "Left Party", whom I still vote on though.) (And no let's not start a commie bashing thread I know all about the atrocities commited by them and the downfalls of the theory!)[/QB] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A communist! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif We have a communist in our midst! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Batten down the hatches! Get the women and children into shelters! Go onto stage 3 alert! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Yes, there is a huge difference between theoretical communism and "Communism", an experiment gone bad. Theoretical commmunism emphasizes the importance of the working man In contrast, Communism de-emphasized the importance of the proletariat. An example is of the untold millions who died of mass starvation in the 30's when Stalin converted the farms into collectives. Complain and you won a free trip to a government sponsored resort whereby you had the opportunity to experience a new lifestyle. In a society where everyone was supposed to be equal, gross inequalities flourished. The elite were insulated from the worst abuses of power. While there were purges, they did not reach the magnitude of the untold millions who died helplessly at the hands of the regime. Government officials had summer resorts in addition to large homes, the common man felt himself blessed to share a 3 room apartment with only one other family. Government officials had the right to shop in government stores which had a wide selection of products. The common man had the right to wait in line for hours in anticipation of buying a product which may not be available when he reached the head of the line. He could then look forward to waiting in another line for another product he needed in order to survive. Just a few examples of the good life in Russia. Like it or not, we are all basically the same. We may have been blessed with a greater intelligence, more money, more goods, but IMO none of those makes a person a better person than another. Ruatha, I totally agree with you that people in corporations are ordinary people who have family and kids. To tar and feather everyone who belongs in a certain class because of the actions of a few is not right. Hate is extremely corrosive. It has severe consequences to both the person expressing it and the target. Even criminals deserve respect as people. What they have done is not to be condoned or accepted. And they need to pay the price. But they are still people. People who hate, often learn this lesson the hard way when a relative is incarcerated. I think it was Nietzche who said that the health of a nation can be inferred from how it treats its criminals. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Like who? Dick Cheney? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif About the anti-Americanism, I wouldn't worry about that, there is absolutely nothing that the US can do to be loved, because all ruling empires have been hated through history. You can be sure that those people blindly anti-american would be the same wether the US did something wrong or not. Of course, there are other people out there, like me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif , that don't hate the US, but "strongly" dislike the current administration. So all anti-americanism is not anti-Bush, and all anti-Bush is not anti-americanism. . |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Tbontob, there is no way to have a "theoretical communist" government. Marxism in practice will naturally flow towards either anarchy or Stalinism, because the theory of Marxism is inherantly flawed. It's flaw is that it fails to account for the fact that it must be administered by human beings, and human beings are inherantly flawed. We are greedy by our nature.
A system such as capitalism assumes this truth and uses the inherrant nature of the species as a check and balance agaisnt it's baser tendancies. Yes of course there are plenty of examples of corruption but they are the exception rather then the rule in a truely free capitlaist economy. They result from fallible humans attempting to control market forces, which goes against the capitalist principle, instead of "letting it be". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I disagree to an extent, when you show you cannot live in harmony with the rest of society and obey their laws (habitual criminals) you become nothing more than an animal and should be treated as such. I like the 3 strike law. Hey you screw up once it may have been a mistake, but you make the mistake 2 more times, it's over. Death row should be empty. Terrorists should be tortured for information (they are cowards and will sing like a jay-bird)and then killed. I am tired of my tax money supporting criminals who have rights when they have no respect for mine. (ducks some more) Sorry had to vent, have strong feelings on this subject...I realize it is alittle off topic. But this posting keeps going off on tangents. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Maybe there is another way, but we don't know it yet. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
He is not fighting defending his country, oh no, he is killing for money, the lowest of all excuses. So yeah, I support the death penalty, as long as the crimminal have been proven guilty beyond doubt. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
By Stalinism I don't mean strict idealogical Stalinism, but any sort of totalitarianism. Force and coersion of some kind is neccesary to maintain the system in spite of it's flaws. Those that believe in Marxism often dismiss the fact that every communist state in history has turned into a totalitarian regime and pine for true Marxism to be given "a fair try". But they are deluding themselves. It's not outside influences, but the inherant flaws in the communist theory that cause it.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Geoschmo, I never said there was a way 'to have a "theoretical communist" government.' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Just as there is no way to have a "theoretical capitalist" government. A much purer form of capitalism flourished a couple of centuries ago. Because of the abuses, the government had to step in and we have a...what would you call it? Socialized capitalism? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I am using a different term because our so-called "capitalism" of today is very different from the capitalism of two centuries ago. And calling them by the same name blurs the issues. IMO, the inherent difficulty with communism (small c) is in its conflict to treat people the same and inability to effectively reward initiative. Fundamentally it has a problem of determining the mechanism by which the person is to be rewarded. We use the market mechanism to reward people. And basically it is self-regulating. Create something people want and you will be rewarded. Create something people do not want, and not only will you not be rewarded, a lot of money will have been lost in the process. IMO, Communism tried to avoid it because they perceived the market mechanism to be a characteristic of capitalism. Our societies were flexible enough to move from pure capitalism towards communism, only we called it socialism. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Heaven forbid that we cannot admit that our society is a hybrid of capitalism and communism (small c). So, we invent the word socialism. That makes us feel more comfortable. Now, just so you do not jump all over me, I am not implying the U.S. government is a socialist government. But the U.S. does have socialist programs, a lot of them. Communism (large C) could have moved towards capitalism and we could have ended up having similiar societies. Maybe if they invented a word which would allow them to move towards capitalism without openly admitting it, they could have done so. But I doubt it would have happened because Soviet Communism was a totalitarian regime and as power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
The US has some of the strongest anti-trust laws in the world, atleast I think so (!) We in europe are catching up but we don't have as much regulations concerning the cooperations yet as the US has. (Edit:Tbontob beat me to it!) [ May 15, 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
(And that is good, in my opinion) The true greatness of western civilization is the emergance of human rights! [ May 15, 2003, 17:21: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Another thing I see happening that way down the road, maybe 100 years from now, is that we "the people of earth" will become a blend of one nation where each country will be just a state within it. And I don't think the U.S. will be in the driver seat. Will that be good/bad I don't know. The only thing that I see that might change that is China. It will be very interesting how China reacts with the NK situation. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
You point out, correctly, that "utopian" communism is inherently flawed because it fails to account for human nature (i.e. it is unrealizable). I would further add that IMO laisez fair capitalism is equally as flawed for exactly the same reason. The language in your own post helps to support my point of view when you are forced to say a "truly free" capitalistic society has little corruption. You are, of course, forced to use the words "truly free" because no such society exists and never will. People are greedy not only for money, but for power as well and in a laisez fair economy whatever powers benefit from the random fluctiations in power levels to gain power will quickly change the rules away from "truly free" to "whatever benefits us" and you will no longer have a "truly free" economy anymore. I keep putting "truly free" in quotes because IMO there is no such thing, even in theory, since the economic game has to be played by some rules and those rules will always benefit some players over others. What this leads to in my observance of the real world, is exactly as you said, when you try and implement a "truly free" capatilistic economy what you inevitably end up with is large levels of corruption. A very good book on this topic is "The Mystery of Capitalism" by Hernando DeSoto. To summarize: DeSoto asks the question, "given that Capitalism has worked so incredibly well in the western world and undeniably led to great wealth and prosperity for most (if not quite all, certainly better than any other system in historical record), how come recent experiments with implementing capitalistic economies in third world countries and former communist countries has been such an abject failure?" He goes on to display good documentation that in fact, these third world countries (and in particular the poor people in these countries) have incredible resources and "capital" for investment which is for some reason locked up in their economies and not being unleashed to create more wealth. The reason for this, in DeSoto's opinion, is that these countries laws do not reflect the situation that these poor people find themselves in. The systems for exchanging wealth in these countries are entirely based around those who are already in the system and does not allow poor people to readily convert and move their capital around. For example, many poor people "own" houses (in the sense that they made them with their bare hands), but do not have title to those houses and thus can not obtain a loan to start a small business (for example) by using their house as collatoral. Furthemore to obtain such a title would require something like 100 hours of waiting in line and filling out forms (he actually sent research assistants to stand in line and timed them) a procedure which is considerably expedited for those who already own property and/or have the resources to hire people to do their paperwork for them. Of particular interest was DeSoto's revisiting of U.S. history in which he showed that the famous Homesteading act was in fact a law introduced after the fact to allow people who had worked hard improving land they did not own to benefit from the capital they produced and thus generate more capital. DeSoto argues that these third world countries need similar acts to help them in their situation and they really need strong and fair laws which allow them to utilize their already existing capital. In short, what is needed is a Strong, but Fair, Government. Thus Government, far from being the bane of a prosperous economy, is something which is *essential* to allowing the greatest number of people to play at this economic game and thereby freeing up even more capital for investment and productive use. Obviously too much Government is bad (that 100 hours of waiting in line), but not enough Government is equally bad. The question (and an extremely tricky one at that) is how to decide these laws and how to best implement them, what level of police power is needed, etc. It is here that the idea of checks in balances is, to my mind, the best one, but it is very important to remember that the unchecked free market must also be checked. To summarize: both capitalism (read little government, dog eat dog competition) and communism (read strong central government, dog shoots competing dog in back of head so their will be no competition) are straw men and their followers (Libertarians on the one hand, and communists on the other) are rightly relegated to minority status in any body politic. Let's try to keep the straw manning down to a dull roar rather than the knee jerk response it typically is... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Teal, you seem to gone off on a tangent from a few words in Geo's post and missed the meaning of it entirely... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Capitalism is not a government. It does not require any specific form of government to be in practice. Democracies, monarchies, oligarchies, etc. can all have capitalistic governments. Capitalism does not require "real little government", no more than "real strong central government" requires or creates "communism". Economic and government theory are not that simplistic. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Topic of discussion was "communism vs. capitalism". I fail to see how my post was a tangent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Capitalism *does* require certain types of governments in order to be effective. That's the whole point. Its not a magic bullet you can just pull out of your hat and say its the best and that's how you create wealth and help people. You need strong and fair government in order to realize the benefits of capitialism. Question should be not how do we instill free market capitalism on as many countries and places in the earth as possible, but how do we help people obtain fair and strong Governments which can make good laws and have the power to enforce them? A much harder question. Certainly you can run capitalism under many forms of government, but it will be most effective under that type of Government which allows everyone to play the game and has enough power to enforce its laws. Once again, how you set up such a Government is an extremely complex question. Cheers! |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
teal, you make some very valid points. As with Pure Marxism, pure capitalism is an unatainable goal as long as soceity is composed of falible human beings. However, because capitalistic theory assumes and makes use of the falibility of man instead of ignoring or rejecting it as comunnism does, even an imperfect capitalistic system can result in a stable, prosperous nation. While the imperfect communist system will trend towards totalitarianism as the government strives to maintain growth and order in the absence of personal incentive.
The rule of law is required for a stable society regardless of economic system. Most laws have nothing to do with the produciton and distribution of goods and services. Those that do should strive to use as light of a touch as possible, to allow the "Unseen hand" unfettered movement. Social programs are not by definition anti-capitalist, and neither is government as a whole. But either can be done to an excess that becomes anti-capitalist. Government with a light touch that encourages entrepreneurship and competition can be most decidedly pro-capitalist. Social programs that act as safety nets for the truely unfortunate members of a soceity can also be pro-capitalist as it can help prevent the spread of crime and disease which are bad for the wealth of the nation. Pro-capitalist social programs must be designed with incentives for the receipients that encourages their own personal entrepreneurship. To provide them the means and opportunity to better themselves. Not to simply provide their needs and wants indefinetly. Or they are no longer part of the market. They become non-productive. Government is also neccesary for the common good. To do the things that individuals can't, and business shouldn't do. Infrastructure, defense, keeping the peace, enforcing the rule of law. But they need to be accountable to the public, and strive to be as efficent as possible. As Smith said these duties may be noble, but they are by their nature unproductive. Government cannot be productive, but it should strive to keep it's level of non-productiveness to an absolute minimum that is still sufficent to maintain the general welfare of the population. Jeez, this is turning into a manifesto here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Geoschmo P.S. And Tbontob, Anti-Trust laws are not anti-capitalist, because capitalism needs competition between providers of goods and services. Monopolies are anti-capitalist. [ May 15, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
I think the idea is ultimately doomed to failure as it is difficult for a person to accept "a little bit" of freedom. They can tolerate none, and they will flourish with a lot. But give them just a little and they will be the most miserable. Case in point, Soviet Union/Eastern Europe. You pointed them out as examples of the failure of western capitalism, but it's still way to early to be making those sorts of judgements. Most of the problems they are having have to do with half steps towards free and open markets, rather then moving too fast. The corrupt governments trying to stay corrupt. Hard to do while simultaneously giving the population the freedom to better themselves. Geoschmo [ May 15, 2003, 20:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
But I do agree with it. [Edit: Ruatha's remark] And IMO Teal has it right. Two centuries ago, capitalism was based on a "let the market mechanism determine what happens and the government should not be involved." "Lassez-faire" was the term used to both describe and promote the doctrine of minimal government interference in capitalism. The latin phrase "Caveat emptor" (Let the buyer beware) was also used extensively for the same purpose by implying that the buyer had no one to blame but himself since he should have been more careful in making his decision. And since the responsibility lay with the buyer, the government should not become involved. Now if you want to redefine capitalism to include extensive government laws and regulations, well ok. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But it is the same as telling me a mule is a horse. However much they share similiarities, and have the same parentage, IMO a mule and a horse are not the same animal. Similarly, capitalism in the 18th century is fundamentally different from the capitalism you are proposing. Further my Websters Collegiate Dictionary defines capitalism as: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decisions rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." Seems to me that when governments pass laws which affect the market place, it changes the private decisions of investors, and interferes with free market competition. And each law that is passed which affects the market place, takes the country one step further away from capitalism. [ May 15, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: tbontob ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Yes to write off Russia as a failure is plain gross.
Ukraine hasn't fared very well, it's still totalitarian. But conditions in Russia is improving all the time, it is aswell one of the growing markets in the world and it starts to show for the common people there aswell. Most of the other central-european countries are soon to join the European Union and conditions are improving there aswell. But in some of these countries (Read Polen (What's the english name for the country where Polish people live? Is it Polen? Will have to google it later!)) where there is a large ineffecient agricultural sector things can still get worse before it turns.. EDIT: It's somewhat irritating when people (read Tbontob http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) writes Posts when I'm doing it and then Posts before I've finished my Posts. Thereby making me miss their post as I (wrongly) assume that I've read all that is before my post. Will have to write faster in the future! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif [ May 15, 2003, 21:02: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Laisse-faire is one type of capitalism. It was never at any point in history the only form of capitalism. Noone redefined capitalism when the US (and other countries) began to have the government get more involved in breaking up trusts (defintiely anti-capitalistic entities) and such.
The country is Poland, for "Pole land". [ May 15, 2003, 20:43: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
You are quite correct on this point. Although the Chinese are currently running an interesting soceitetal expirement in which they are attempting to bring in aspects of a capitalist economic system, while maintaining the totalitarian hold of the government.
Geo... I think you ment to say the Canadians are currently running an interesting soceitetal expirement in which they are attempting to bring in aspects of a capitalist economic system, while maintaining the totalitarian hold of the government. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[quote]Originally posted by tbontob:
Quote:
[quote]Originally posted by tbontob: Quote:
200 years ago you could get by with a mule and the sweat of your brow. You could eeke out a living of bare sustenance working your own piece of land. And if you wanted to improve your station you developed a skill and marketed it freely. Competition, supply and demand all worked on a local scale. Government wasn't needed to get involved in those things. In our modern industrial world technological advances have improved our lives immesurably, but it has also made us dependant on those technologies. Water, electricity, phones, gasoline, these are all fundamental needs for a person to exsist in todays modern soceity. Specialization has made production more efficent, but the same time made the role of the individual producer or craftsman smaller. In my mind this doesn't change the basic advantage of capitalism of any other sort of economic system we have devised, but it does need to evolve somewhat to remain relevant. [quote]Originally posted by tbontob: Quote:
I don't see it as stepping away from capitalism. Capitalism is evolving as soceity evolves. It may not be capitalism in it's pure 18th centruy theoretical form. I have conceeded that. But that doesn't mean it's something entierly different. Geoschmo |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
For shame, I thought we had a monopoly on that. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Well, we did think of burning the White House again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
But our feasibility study seemed to show it wouldn't succeed. So we decided on alternate means to undermine your system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Those damned pseudo-Vikings to the North, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
It can be argued that the U.S. has moved away from capitalism toward socialism in a number of areas. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing makes for a significant debate. I do know that in a number of industries (such as healthcare billing, where I am working right now) small companies are struggling to deal with tons of government red tape (strangely in the guise of "Administrative Simplification") that threaten to choke them out.
While government regulation can be a good thing as it protects consumers from large corporations whose only goal is to make money at anyone's expense, it can also choke out small companies that would otherwise provide competition to the larger companies that can afford to deal with the red tape. There is a fine line between too much and too little regulation, and it is a line that we struggle with, missing on both sides of the line from time to time. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
D, seriously though, what you don't get is that that is not culture. It's not American culture that is infecting you. It's simply a rampant consumerism. It's one of the unfortunate side effect that come from living in a succesful capitalist economy where your needs are satisfied to the point where your baser desires start coming out to the forefront.
There is nothing inherantly American about it, and it's not culture. Many people in America object to it as much as you do. They attempt to remove as much of that junk from their life and live in a simpler, more "natural" way. I believe it's called "minimalism". Although you know what that is don't you? It's in your web page banner. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Geoschmo [ May 15, 2003, 12:06: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Geo- yes, it is rampant consumerism that I object to, but you have to admit that the US is the champion of market-forces-worship, unchecked capitalism and rampant consumerism. Sure, us Europeans invented modern capitalism, but I'd say you Americans were the ones to first take it to the dangerous extremes we see today. The US are the ones who have ridden the capitalist wave most effectively over the Last half-century and that's why there is a McDonalds in every town on the planet rather than a Dog & Duck pub. (Not that I'd want there to be.)
As for your minimalist lifestyle- although I would name it differently- yes, my gf and I try to live our lives as much like that as we can. It's not easy, but we try to minimise packaging and waste, conserve energy, purchase responsibly and we recycle just about everything (metal, pLastic, paper, glass, compost). I see it as the most effective (legal) way of opposing rampant consumerism that we can possibly fit into our lifestyle. Hopefully more and more people will do the same and eventually things will change. [ May 15, 2003, 12:44: Message edited by: dogscoff ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Regarding the statements made by several people that "18th century capitalism was somehow more pure and the free sort of capitalism".
This is an anti-historical myth in my opinion. There never was such a time (although references to this time before FDR came and screwed everything up with the New Deal run rife in the current right wing story about the history of the United States). For starters it was not a free capitalistic society because many parts of it relied on slavery. You could argue that this ideal society existed in the western parts of the United States where "man lived by the sweat of his brow alone". But, as I mentioned very briefly earlier, DeSoto showed that this was not actually the case. Man lived on this land, yes, and improved it. But he was not legally allowed to benefit from that land until *after* a very large number of people had already homesteaded. The first homesteaders were breaking the law and were quite lucky that government didn't invalidate their claims. It could easily have gone the other way. Geo: It sounds like we agree on quite a bit. My apologies for making an unfair assumption at the beginning of the discussion, but I kind of had to in order to get the ball rolling. Regarding Totalitarianism and Capitalism: IMO the best modern example of this is not China, but Singapore (an extremely successful country by almost any measure you care to make, yet you can get caned for chewing gum on the subway). Although I hope, as you folks do, that these societies will eventually collapse, the historical record is not so encouraging in places. Totalitarianism has a way of sticking around even when people are given a little bit of freedom. An interesting, although slightly tangential, point is that made by Robert Fogel in his work which won him the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics. He argued that, contrary to what most people are taught in school, the slave economy of the Negro south was in fact very very effecieint and perhaps the most effecient in the world. Sobering news indeed for those who believe that the be all and end all of economics, and by extension society, is to make things as effecient as humanly possible. Cheers! Teal Edit: Fogel's work is contreversial to say the least. Make up your own mind about it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ May 16, 2003, 19:17: Message edited by: teal ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Now I'm not saying we should ignore our flaws, but I don't like the idea of pandering to them. Surely we should be striving to eliminate such defects, to better ourselves. We can never do that as long as we are holding them up for worship. Just my thoughts. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
You don't have to pander to your basest instincts, but you can't fight a basic component of human nature. If people don't have the opportunity to benefit from their labors, then they are going to do the mimimum amount necceseary to get by. That's just how it is D. Admitting it may be cynical, but trying to change it is naieve. And as far as your other point, I believe man IS inherantly biased towards rape and murder. But that is more of a philisophical discussion then an economic one. We have to fight against those tendancies as individuals and as a soceity because they are counter productive. You can't channel those instincts towards individual fulfillment and the greater good the way you can with an emotion like greed. That's why we need laws and governments to begin with. To protect us form those members of the species who cannot control those aspects within themselves. Geoschmo [ May 16, 2003, 14:03: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.