Praxus

Aww, thanks

Rani Lakshmibai

Economic oppression? Society is made up of people that come together in a social contract, and of course some will be successful and others will not be. The guy who works as a janitor works harder than some professionals (but not all) but at a fraction of the pay. Granted the professional worked hard for years in university to earn his job but the fact remains that both the Janitor and the Professional, if they put in an 8-hour day, will not be paid the same amount of money. The Janitor, of course, probably did not choose his job because he like it, but out of necessity. It is more probable that he did not go to university because he did not have sufficient funds to do so, unlike SOME professionals who could come up with thousands of dollars a year for tuition, either through loans, scholarships, work etc.

At the end of the day, the janitor and the businessman work hard, but come one day, the janitor develops a serious disease costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat but he is left in the lurch by the government and American society because he did not work at a high-paying job that provided large savings or affordable health insurance.

Nice scenario.... I wonder why I wouldn't want to live in America.


You don't owe anybody a damn thing, Praxus. But if you were living on the street, would you say that? It ain't extortion, it's called the price of living in society. You don't want to step outside and have your head blown off by some nut because there aren't any police, nor would you want to drive down a road that has the texture of a pineapple. Ensuring that programs be undertaken to help those in vulnerable situations is another social service. At least that's how I was taught. Because guess what Praxus, if they ain't happy, you ain't gonna be happy. When the black people were treated like slaves, they weren't happy, and they made sure you weren't happy either. When the Native Americans weren't happy, your great- great-grandmothers scalp hung around some warrior's neck as proof of their discontent. You hog all the cash, and try and make sure that every last cent stays with you, sooner or later there's gonna be a section of society that decides enough is enough.

Productive? What if you can't be productive? Say you were born physically malformed or suffered accidents? The productive certainly have a right to what they earned but to hold onto every single cent as though it was your first born is pure selfishness. It wouldn't kill you to give away 5 or 10 percent. Don't harp on about the joys of a laisse-fairez economy.


Oh yes, I'm sure poor, poor Bill Gates will miss a few tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, right? What with his fortune being worth, what was it, $ 60 billion? I'm sure he won't be able to buy something now that he's lost a hundred million.

No, I was referring to something Stalin said; he said something to the effect that the Capitalists would wind up selling the rope that others would hang them with. I've never realized it was true till now. I mean look at China, considered America's biggest threat. But guess who's spending investing like crazy, setting up factories and generally building up China? America. Smart move. Build up the economy of the country that's gonna rape you tomorrow. All for a quick buck today. Stalin you were nuts, but you were right for once.

Don't make me laugh, if even a small majority of the American people held the views being expressed here, the American downtrodden would have to look to Osama Bin Laden for financial help.

Right, taking away a couple of hundred million from people whose networth is in the tens of billions will result in their collapse. Please spare me it. Your ideology is based on pure greed, and nothing else. I certainly don't suggest babysitting people too much or giving away handouts, but making sure your own citizens are relatively well off or have the at least have the chance to do so might strain your pursestrings to the point of causing you to have depression and withdrawal symptoms as well as a complete loss of productivity, right?

I would suggest that you tell your 18 year old knuckleheads to do that to their mothers before they leave for Iraq to be turned into little red splotches on the ground (I would also suggest that you remember that moronic American insults result in the same being returned with love albeit one better).

And no, for your kind information, I'm not a communist. In terms of fiscal matters (from the POV of a government), I'm strictly centre. The budget must be balanced, encouraging entrepreneurship and business, but attempting to help the downtrodden in society. The primary goal would be to ensure prosperity for as many as possible, not the turning of a profit. So I guess that in terms of the protection of society and people, I would be left-leaning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is amazing. I heard my polisci professor say that when he went over the border for an official school visit to the US when he was in high school, even joking about Communism was akin to a cardinal sin. I thought he may have been exaggerating, but these comments show that he was probably right.

So anything you earn is yours, not to be shared with anyone else? The government should interfere as little as possible, only existing to advance the profit-making of the investors? The government shouldn't try to help out those in need? Oh, but the government is allowed to run a gigantic military machine that overruns other countries for financial gain?

Remarkable. I never thought I would meet such a selfish people in my life. Well, that explains why Canada prefers to conduct economic relations without attempting invasions of just about every country in existence. I suppose that in a country where profit is the only motive, that any means could be justified to reach this end? Including the use of military threats in order to subjugate and destroy all economic competitors? So American economic might lies in her willingness to ignore all morality and use any means to ensure economic dominion?

I wonder why the Americans were crying about jobs shifting to India and Philipines and stuff. I thought you would say, "Oh well, those in the best economic position to exploit the situation wins, we can we do? After all, they earned it, we don't have any right to complain." or something like that what with your attitude.

I don't suppose the people who have just replied to my statement have ever heard of any other morality besides 'Might is right' and 'Business is war'? Ah well, what goes around comes around. You'll get the return on your investment and it won't be what you were expecting either. If you be selfish and immoral, you'll be treated that way too.

Amled

The greatest productive force is human selfishness.

Lazarus Long (a.k.a. Robert A. Heinlein)

__________________
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

dalem

How is what I said an insult, let alone moronic? And watch your mouth about "red splotches" so close to Memorial Day, genius.

Gee, ya think? "Ensuring prosperity for as many as possible" looks bad on a prospectus.

Communism Kills People.

By default, yes, of course. If I earn it, it sure isn't yours.

No. The government should provide an environment that allows and encourages us to enrich our lives. The more our lives are enriched, the more we can help others.

Ideally, no.

Well, it's part of the government's job to run a gigantic military machine. It's in the instruction manual.

And where is the financial gain of which you speak? I failed to get my check.

Ain't it cool?

Aww, such cute rhetoric! We haven't invaded Canada in almost 200 years.

Put down the hookah. We've never destroyed an economic competitor that wasn't askin' for it.

Sadly, no. We are chock full of morality. Foreign press dings us for it all the time.

Personally I think it rocks. but you didn't ask, did you? You just assumed.

Have you ever met any Americans?

-dale

Officer of Engineers

Don't kid yourself. Canada has been involved in more invasions than the US, only under the guise of Peacekeeping missions which does not change the fact that Canadian soldiers had imposed Canadian will on non-Canadian soil through military means and at times, hot combat.

__________________
Chimo

ZFBoxcar

Its funny how in the same post he says America destroys its economic competitors AND that America is helping China destroy the United States.

FlyingCaddy

Though I agree with most you said I disagree and Assert alot of people on wall street do make money by moving it side to side. Like Ben Franklin said and was agreed by most founding fathers and Adam Smith, there are 3 ways to make money, the primary- use of the land (Ie farming, mining, forestry, etc) the secondary- manufacture, the tertiary- investment instruments, many 18th and early 19th century economists saw the tertiary as the most base because it creates wealth through the use of paper promises unlike primaries or secondaries which have some product with a natural independent value.

The reason I didnt like the article is that it made limited references to Economic points on why America is collapsing, it was of a much more historical vein than economic and more editorial than scholarly. I do agree that the US trading defecit and also the want of labor is several primary resources industry like forestry does bother me alot.

Praxus

Show me the logical argument that says the poor have a right to the money traded to me in exchange for my labor/services?

How much one works is irrelivent. How much someone is willing to pay you without pointing a gun at their head is however rellivent to what you should be payed.

This justifies theft, HOW?

Yes. The difference between people that believe what I believe and most that don't, is that we stand for something on principle, not because of an emotional response.

Police are a legitiment purpose of Government (along with courts and military) that should be payed for via contract fees (You pay to have your contract enforced by the Government). Welfare on the other hand not only hurts the economy and the poor, but it's based on the false premise that my money is societies money, to dispose with it as it sees fit.

Let's pretend welfare makes the poor happy, so what?

The truth is however, anyone with an ounce of self-esteem could not truely be happy sucking the blood from innocent people.

It's interesting how you equate me wanting to keep my own money with slavery. Very interesting. How about you form a logical argument, how one idea leads to another, and eventually to the idea that the poor (or society) has a right to my money.

Wealth is not static. If they want more wealth, they can go out and make it.

Just because fate was out for them doesn't mean I owe them anything.

I am an egoist; your point being?

Your ignoring me. A man either has a right to his property, or he doesn't. Which is it, it can't be both.

I like your complete non-sequitor.

There would be vastly fewer downtrodden and the few that did would rely on the donations of the overwhelming ammount of wealthy people.

They wouldn't collapse, they would get the hell out of here. Unless you now want to make them officially slaves and make sure they can't leave?

Actually it's based on a hiearchiel philosophy, something you in all likelyhood lack.

Julie

I am just sooo glad Rani is not my personal accountant.

Abbott

Praxus

The truth is however, anyone with an ounce of self-esteem could not truely be happy sucking the blood from innocent people.


I am an egoist; your point being?
-----


I am so pleased you have to give up part of your income.

Praxus

If your not going to say anything productive, just don't post.

Rani Lakshmibai

I don't particularly care about your American war dead. Especially since the vast majority of the dead died on foreign soil in an attempt to subjugate the inhabitants, and used as pawns by your politicians. If they had died in the fighting of a war where a foriegn aggressor wrongfully attacked you, then at least their deaths would have meaning.

But let me guess, those who died in Vietnam were protecting American freedom? Or those who are currently dying in Iraq? Since the Bush administration has admitted that WMD information was false, the least that could have been done was to pull out. But no, Americans are still there and Iraqi oil is now controlled by America, reconstruction contracts worth billions of dollars are given to American companies etc. (and then you wonder why the Iraqis are sending your boys back in pieces. What would Americans do to, say the EU or Mexico should it invade America? Duh.) It is quite obvious that your soldiers are being used as cannon fodder in order to further enrich the wealthy Americans. If I were you, I'd have these politicians and business leaders into prison for being your own troops' worst enemy.


Communism doesn't take into account certain aspects of human nature. One being that absolute power corrupts. Communism doesn't usually allow voting and as such it results in people who are deemed threats being removed. In a utopian world or on paper, communism is the best system, but in reality it doesn't.

Capitalism was formulated by the wealthy, European countries as it was the best way to steal wealth from their colonies. It kills too, but it is a silent, slow killer that terminates its victim after inflicting suffering for years or decades. A tortorous death. The victim tends to be one who is born into a poor station in life, perhaps without access to education, and/or runs into bad luck. I notice that the rich or the well-connected don't suffer from the effects of capitalism.

If you earned it, you'd better damn well remember to 1) give to thanks to God for his mercy in allowing you to stand long enough to add up all your profits, because God sure don't owe you anything, let alone keeping you alive for decades so that you can enrich yourselves, 2) that many people who are exactly the same as you in every respect but have some problem or difficulty that prevents them from doing what you are.

And don't talk about helping others once you are enriched, the percentage of total wealth donated to charity steadily drops as the wealth increases (inversely proportional). An example would be Mississippi state, which is on the top of the list of states that donate the most, even though it is one of the poorest states in America (that's relatively speaking). In short, the poor, despite having little, give more of what little they have than those who are rich. So if I were a poor person, I wouldn't hold my breath for you give me anything after you became rich.

Of course. That leaves the government more money to spend on the richer sections of society, right?

Well you don't get a check, but your car is now assured a source of polluting petrol for the next ten to fifteen years, albeit with higher prices in the short term, now that Iraq has been invaded. And the company that you work for has its revenue increased because it recieved a sub-contract from a corporation that is doing reconstruction in Iraq. The stocks of munitions and military supplies' companies have gone through the roof and Lockheed Martin's future is looking very sunny. Throw in some tax cuts for rich people and you get a 3.5% economic growth this year for the US.

It doesn't matter if you think it rocks. The right-wing nuts in America have been going cuckoo and have passed laws and other such things in order to stop BPO. So the majority of people with similar subverted mindsets don't think it rocks and that's what matters because the majority is who makes the decisions.

I live a few tens of kilometres from the US-Canadia border. What do you think? And I've met you, at least electronically, and the other American posters in here, and I've met other American posters in other forums, and for the most part, they share your opinions.

They went on peace-keeping missions under the auspices of the UN. As far as I know, the UN is not an institution dedicated to turning a profit. Which is more than I can say about the American government (whose policies are dictated by wealthy capitalists). And I haven't heard of the Canadian government using peace-keeping missions to loot the places where their troops were stationed. Which is again more than what I can say about what you Americans are doing in Iraq.

If America could dominate China without having a million red splotches being all that's left of their troops, then you can bet your rear end that they would have already done it. But even though America wants money, it doesn't have the balls to pay the necessary price (incidently, that's why they nuked Japan in 1945). That's why Bush invaded Iraq, he thought he could loot the country while the Iraqis garlanded his troops. What a sucker. Oh well, it ain't my countrymen who are getting ripped up and down in Iraq.


I think your beliefs are based in arrogance. In fact, a sizable proportion of the American population is arrogant. Not all, but enough. I don't think that Allies disputed that during WWI or WWII; the primary complaint of other allied troops was that the American soldiers were too arrogant. The complaint has been repeated numerous times by other the citizens of other countries who happened to cross your path over the years. Oh btw, that's why the French hate your guts. And spare me the propaganda about them being cowards. Even that is only your arrogance speaking.

It is your arrogance that thinks that you don't owe anyone anything, because in terms of accounting you are right, you don't have to give money to anyone. But speaking morally, it is your duty to ensure that your fellow man at least has someone to help him when he is down. Let me quote from the Bible (many of you are atheists, but you should be able to see the reason):

And of course what the Bible considers as being rich towards God is:

You don't have to be religious or Christian to understand what is being said here. Because the first quote asks a good question: What guarantee do you have that you will live long enough to spend the wealth you accumulate? Material wealth is yours but the keys to your soul still lie in the hand of God. I suggest you remember that. Because it is a very real possibility that Warren Buffet might have a fatal heart attack as he tries to eat his caviar. If you are against giving handouts, I can understand that. In fact, I am of the school that wants to teach people how to fish, instead of giving them fish. Giving away handouts encourages sloth and at any rate, is not economically sustainable, but every effort must be made to pull those who are down on their luck back onto their feet and individual donations, random and wildly fluctuating in any case, are not adequate enough to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks. And there are nothing but cracks in a patchwork system based on donations. Which is why the government must take charge of it.


I believe I answered this above. A man has the right to his property, but to dine and wine in wealth while watching others in grinding poverty is taking the human ability to ignore another human's pain to the maximum.

Only selfish people like you would leave (capitalists). The rest of the world is predominantly socialist because their societies are ancient and based in concern for the community as a whole or at least paying lip service to it, not 'me me me' and 'what's mine is mine and no one else's' philosophy that America follows.

Hierarchial philosophy? Define that. If you mean some people are the haves, and others are have-nots, then reality will always be like that. But many countries try and spread the wealth around as much as possible so that those with too much have less and those with too little have enough. And I like that philosophy. Even if I became a billionaire, I don't think that would change. And hey, if life is unfair enough to the have-nots so to deny them sufficient material wealth to meet their basic needs, life should be equally unfair to the haves by taking a little of what they possess from them. Because life is not fair to everybody.


Actually, I think you would prefer my being your accountant as opposed to say Praxus, because would probably be stealing from you while simultaneously stealing from Enron, what with a selfish mentality like that .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A few facts:


Global Income Distribution 1960-1989
Share of Global Income

Year Richest 20% Poorest 20% Ratio of Richest/Poorest
1960 70.2 2.3 30 to 1
1970 73.9 2.3 32 to 1
1980 76.3 1.7 45 to 1
1989 82.7 1.4 59 to 1


As predicted, the world's wealth is collecting in the hands of a few, what with above 80% of the world's wealth in the hands of the industrialized nations. Meaning that the remaining 83% of the world's population lives on 20% of the wealth. These figures should show you that claims of economic growth being necessary so that wealth can 'trickle down' to those who need is a 'grotesque scam' as David Suzuki calls it. And these figure are a decade and a half out of date. Globalization is a eupheism for imperialism.

America managed to pull itself out of the Great Depression only with the immense war production to fight WWII and as the war ended, business leaders worried over how to keep the economic boom going. The solution was consumption. But of course, durable goods would result in market saturation, leading to the development of planned obsolesence and ever expanding markets (ever wonder why America is forever threatening and invading other countries? Now you know; I heard that the CEO of an American corporation tasked with selling cell phones in Iraq, a market with very few phones, nearly wet himself with excitement). The key is disposability, by getting people to use products once and then throw it away, endless markets are created. Thus, the rise of consumerism and commercialism.

And the complete destruction of entire portions of environment in the ceaseless search for profit. And the saturation of every possible corner with advertisements. I wonder how long this is sustainable. Especially if India and China manage to get larger numbers of their population hooked on to consumerism (If they do, they will start pulling vast amounts of wealth from the industrialized world). The damage to the environment would be catastrophic. I'm sure you can imagine the rest. The fact is the Americans don't realise that if they resort to consumerism, the rest of the world has to follow suit or risk falling behind economically and thus, falling prey to either American machinations or that of another country. A sort of economic arms race. With the American wealthy getting richer and the poor getting poorer, America has the largest disparity between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.

All because Americans have been living in country that is still inundated with the propaganda of her colonial ancestors, where the value of human life is associated with productivity. Silly me, and here I was thinking that human life has intrinsic, undeniable, ever-present value. The stage is being set for revolution, look at China or Russia a few decades ago. When the poor got poorer and the rich richer, to an unacceptable degree, revolution ensued. The same is going to happen in America. Sooner or later, though I think it is going to be quite some time before it happens. All because America has been sucking the lifeblood from everyone in existence.

Rani Lakshmibai

May I add to my already gigantic post by quoting James K. Gilbraith, an economist from ECAAR (EConomists Allied for Arms Reduction):

With all the excesses of the American right, is it any surprise that the left is growing stronger in the country? Hopefully, they will turn around things there.