Bush was not at all fiscally conservative, where was the Republican outrage?
Printable View
Bush was not at all fiscally conservative, where was the Republican outrage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Republicans aren't as fiscally conservative as they used to be, apparently.
Not aimed at you, but it seems like the party should go back to it's base..Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
It's the large reason, they are out of power now.
I dont agree with the OP though I think many did take that in to consideration. However, what I have noticed about some of these arguments is apparently if you are against Obama's spending you are automatically a part of the GOP. My roomate tried to call me a repulblican too, and I will tell you right now the GOP is the same as Obama. The reason why the critisicsms are on Obama now is because, well, he and the dems are the ones in power now. However, the people who are smart were criticizing the the GOP back in the day too. They obviously arnt the GOP they are suppose to be and Im tired of being called one when I dont support what the party does, but what it was suppose to do.
Responding to the OP:
Obama wasn't elected because of being black - he was elected because, after 2 turns of someone so ridiculous as G.W. Bush, people just had to have some slight sense and vote for a leftist. It's a really simple pattern to predict, if you know world history well.
What people aren't understanding is that the government is a very important part of the economy (as much as corporations.)
Imagine if you asked all corporations to cut their prices below what it costs them to produce their products? They would go bankrupt, quickly.
That is what people expect the government to do, but at the same time they don't want to deal with the consequences. They like the military that defends us, the social programs that keep their relatives alive, and the roads that connect our states. Not to mention, the politicians LOVE the billions of dollars they can funnel to their state and local governments each year, regardless of party. You can pretend they don't, but you would just be lying to yourself.
So yeah, it is disingenuous to criticize Obama's spending especially when most of it is going back to American communities rather than some shit hole provinces in Iraq (where it would most likely be stolen anyway.)
And what gets me the most about anti-government people is that they claim to love their country yet only want to be involved in dismantling the structure that makes it work.
Libertarians are not anarchists. We just think the government taxes and spends way too much already and does not need to expand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
QFT. I'm so writing this in my diary, or even tattooing it on my forehead. If there should be one thing taught at american schools, it should be this exact post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
I'm just too tired of americans exporting the idea of free market when it is so clear it doesn't work. The situation is even worse if you think that they aren't even reasonable enough to understand that single clear bit. Especially the money-going-back-to-the-country part.
If the free market doesn't work, then what is it that did work for us? We are the richest nation in history for some reason. What is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Why is Japan the second richest nation in the world, and why is Germany the third?
It did work for "you"? "You" abused disloyal competitions with countries that could barely provide for themselves, explored poor people and poor working force, threatened, exported ideologies and all that. The economical crises of 1929 and 2008 were both caused by free market.
And you totally don't know anything about Japan and Germany. It's a thing called research and development. Those countries sell technology. Which, after the 3rd industrial revolution, is perhaps the most lucrative activity.
Free market leads to corruption, social inequality, monopoly, exploration, exhaustion of resources, pollution of the environment and whatnot. Of course, you probably don't even know what free market is or means. Or do you think people go to jail after committing crimes because of free market?
Finally, give up the patriotism. It's the least the world needs right now. As I often say, let's stop treating one another as competitors and treat one another as the human species.
Isn't free market like the opposite of capitalism? Free market is just when anyone can own a business, and capitalism is when businesses are privately owned.
Whats the problem with a free market?
Free market? Free market means companies can do whatever shit they like, which means monopoly, dumping, holding, false competition, resource overuse, etc etc. Capitalism is the pursuit of profit. Free market is one of its variations.
How did we "explorer" poor people? We lead the world in foreign aid. We donate more than half of the world hunger relief food. Stealing from poor people, supposedly, and preaching Christianity (?) made us the richest nation in history? I don't think that answer cuts it. Come on, what made us the richest nation in history? Your answer does not clear up the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
The economic crises we had/have here were a result of government intervention gone bad.
Yes, they sell technology. Is that the full formula? I think you are leaving something out. What allows them to have such good production and sales success? Why don't Cuba, North Korea, and Brazil sell technology and get rich? What is the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Japan and Germany are both countries whose governments we rearranged. (What a coincidence! :roll:) Did you know that? We made them capitalistic on a major level. That is the secret of their success.
If you are going to be personality disturbed, try not to make it so obvious. I asked you some perfectly legitimate questions. Try giving some intelligent answers instead of acting like a pouty seventh grader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I live in the country with the freest market. I know plenty about it. Social inequality (in terms of talent and potential) is created by nature. Capitalists know that and know that trying to sweep that fact under the rug creates uncreative, unproductive economies like that of your country.
If capitalistic countries pollute more and use more resources than countries that have pathetic systems, it is because we produce more as a result of how well capitalism works. Right? Of course a system that sucks more is going to do less with resources. No kidding. We have laws against monopolies, but monopolies only happen when the people are still willing to keep buying one company's products that they think are superior. If the monopoly is a problem for the public, we can buy other companies' products. Inhibition of free market is itself a form of corruption, and the only countries with socialist/communist systems have those systems because nothing can keep them going but a corrupt government.
Too much interference causes stagnation.
That's interesting. I didn't know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Is that what the U.S. is trying to do to Iraq?
Yes, that is exactly what we are trying to do to Iraq and also Afghanistan. The idea is that if the heart of the Middle East culturally advances enough over time, the advancement will spread and the suicide bomber mentality will be extremely rare and far more ridiculed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD
Simplest thing to understand on Earth: in order for one to get richer, many others have to get poorer. You explored poor nations, exported ideologies (ideologies as in economical liberalism, free market, lack of state intervention, which were just excuses for other countries to open their legs wide so that the US could make use). My answer does clear up the issue. Go study world history. War made your country rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
So you're gonna put it in just that single sentence? Not gonna develop? Oh my, that is the weakest argument I've seen. Government intervention causing crisis of credit and crisis of overproduction? You just don't even know what you're talking about.Quote:
The economic crises we had/have here were a result of government intervention gone bad.
You make it sound really simple. You forget that the world is not like you think, and that not every person/country has equal opportunities. Poor nations may grow and become rich, but the rich nations will always become richer. It's a system of permanentalization in power, if you didn't know that already.Quote:
Yes, they sell technology. Is that the full formula? I think you are leaving something out. What allows them to have such good production and sales success? Why don't Cuba, North Korea, and Brazil sell technology and get rich? What is the difference?
You rearranged? Stop being so simplistic. Japan and Germany were already extremely powerful nations even before WWI. If America did anything to them, it was to hold them down. Also, stop being so patriotic.Quote:
Japan and Germany are both countries whose governments we rearranged. (What a coincidence! :roll:) Did you know that? We made them capitalistic on a major level. That is the secret of their success.
...and then you accuse me of making the personal attacks.Quote:
If you are going to be personality disturbed, try not to make it so obvious. I asked you some perfectly legitimate questions. Try giving some intelligent answers instead of acting like a pouty seventh grader.
Social inequality isn't created by nature. Not everyone has the same opportunity. A starving person who cannot read, suffers from diseases like pneumonia, works 14 hours to get less than five dollars each month cannot compete with a major industrial company holder. It doesn't mean that the poor person didn't have potential, he/she only didn't have opportunity - to study, to develop intelligence, to have better health, to find a better job, etc etc. Free market *would* work if everyone was born equal and had the same opportunities. Unfortunately, that is lightyears away from being the truth.Quote:
I live in the country with the freest market. I know plenty about it. Social inequality (in terms of talent and potential) is created by nature. Capitalists know that and know that trying to sweep that fact under the rug creates uncreative, unproductive economies like that of your country.
Stop being so patriotic. My country, my country's people and my country's rulers don't share the same point of view I do. My country sucks terribly, and I know it. And your country sucks too. Difference is, one of them is guilty of exploring the other.
You think producing more is beneficial?Quote:
If capitalistic countries pollute more and use more resources than countries that have pathetic systems, it is because we produce more as a result of how well capitalism works. Right? Of course a system that sucks more is going to do less with resources. No kidding. We have laws against monopolies, but monopolies only happen when the people are still willing to keep buying one company's products that they think are superior. If the monopoly is a problem for the public, we can buy other companies' products. Inhibition of free market is itself a form of corruption, and the only countries with socialist/communist systems have those systems because nothing can keep them going but a corrupt government.
Monopoly doesn't happen because people only buy from one brand, it happens because companies buy other companies to eliminate competition, and without state intervention, you have the end of competition among companies. You seem to defend competition so much, but capitalism allows for unfair competition, and elimination of competition. Monopoly means exactly the absence of two competing companies selling the same product - you are so idiot you don't realise the complete shit you are saying. How can you buy from the other company in a monopoly? Monopoly means only a single company selling a product.
Inhibition of free market is inhibition of unfair competition. Free market is like a game with no rules. State intervention is a person that defines and enforces the rules to a game. If you can't understand through that allusion, then your case is lost - only shows how brainwashed one can be.
Too much, indeed, but "too much" is far more than what you think it is. Way far more. The laws and the state are there for a reason. If free market really worked, we would all have turned anarchist up to now.Quote:
Too much interference causes stagnation.
That is absolutely false. Tell me about the poverty Bill Gates has created, for example. In the mean time, I will tell you about the wealth he has created. He employed 100 millionaires as the CEO of Microsoft. Those millionaires employed lots of other people. The immense success of Microsoft led to the personal successes of the high level people who work there. As a result, they spent more money and helped other businesses grow and hired more people, and those people have more success, etc. The cycle continues. We are using their products right now, and they greatly help businesses everywhere. Also, Bill Gates is the biggest charity giver in history as a result of his successs (Did you know that?), just like the United States is the biggest charity giving nation in history (Did you know that?). Bill's employees have given a ton to charity also. They had the ton because of the success of Microsoft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Bill Gates is so rich that the government borrows money from him.
Now you tell me how Bill fucked up everything and created poverty.
I think the word you are looking for is "exploited". Like with your past answer, tons of countries have fought lots of wars. How are we so much different? Also, notice where I explained that we are history's leading charity giver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Is it a coincidenc that Japan and Germany are in second and third place and we reformed their systems? I want an answer to that question.
You don't know about the lowering of loan standards due to our wonderful Democrats? You don't know about the economic interventions of the 1920's and 1930's? Study history. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
So what if the richer nations get richer? Do you have a problem with success or something? (Yes.) We help poor nations far more than any of your hero socialist nations ever did. Our stimulation of the world economy is about the greatest gift we can give to the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
They were not in second and third place. Not even close. The Marshall Plan for Germany and the rewriting of the Japanese Constitution. They advanced those countries greatly. Do you know how many countries there are in the world? Well, Japan is now the second richest nation in the world, and Germany is third. Tell me with a straight face that that is just a coincidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Study history.
The difference is that you initiated them. I will gladly return them. It is the initiation of them that is schmuckish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Capitalism creates opportunities. Just look at the United States, Germany, and Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Social inequality in a fair system is a result of differences in talent and effort. Both are realities, even if you refuse to acknowledge their existence.
It is fun to explore Brazil, I hear. You have neat rainforest areas and stuff. However, we are not exploiting you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
It obviously is. Our poor people are so rich they mostly have electricity, home entertainment systems, and fat bellies. No flies on the lips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
We have laws against unfair competition as well as monopolies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Not every competing company is going to allow itself to be bought by a monopoly. Also, the monopoly only gets money if people want to give it to them. If it is a problem, a rival company can be started and people who want to buy from them instead will do that. Still, I don't know why we are on this. It is easy as pie to ban monopolies, as we have in fact done.
Again, I am not preaching anarchy. I am preaching very low level intervention. Are you reading my posts very carefully? You seem to be missing stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Your personal insults are not compensating for your inability to debate.
I am not an anarchist. You can have a free market with a certain degree of rule. Your black and white thinking is making your points off target.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
If he sold something, then people paid him money for the thing he sold, which means he accumulated money from millions of other people. I'm not sayin he has created starvation in Africa, but economy is about the flux of money - for one to receive, another has to give.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
It's not about fighting wars. Your economical system only grew because you commercialised with european countries that were broken because of the war.Quote:
I think the word you are looking for is "exploited". Like with your past answer, tons of countries have fought lots of wars. How are we so much different? Also, notice where I explained that we are history's leading charity giver.
Is it a coincidenc that Japan and Germany are in second and third place and we reformed their systems? I want an answer to that question.
I already explained that it's ridiculous to think Germany and Japan are only big because you "reformed their systems" (you practically only made sure they wouldn't be a future annoyance). Germany and Japan, Together with the Soviet Union, were the three greatest countries at the beginning of the XX century. The Soviet Union was broken, and the USA managed to make riches by commercialising heavily with post-war europe. You are taking the wrong cause for the fact.
Economic intervention in the 1930's only happened AFTER the crisis, in order to save the economic system. Study history.Quote:
You don't know about the lowering of loan standards due to our wonderful Democrats? You don't know about the economic interventions of the 1920's and 1930's? Study history. ;)
Don't be so ignorant. What I said is that, due to the system of permanentalization, the poor can never become rich, and the rich can never become poor. You get rich at the cost of many people who starve to make the food you eat, the products you use, the shoes you wear. Poor countries would be much better on their own that with a profit-run country constantly exploiting them.Quote:
So what if the richer nations get richer? Do you have a problem with success or something? (Yes.) We help poor nations far more than any of your hero socialist nations ever did. Our stimulation of the world economy is about the greatest gift we can give to the world.
You have no idea about if they were powerful countries or not. That because of your biased education. Germany wouldn't have even started war if they weren't extremely powerful. Japan had been wanting to participate in a war since WWI, because they had a lot of technology, a lot of people and a lot of resources, and in fact, they chose Germany's side at WWII because they deemed it more powerful - and it was. What happened is that the Soviet Union joined the war, and that changed everything. If it is so simple as you put it, why isn't it that England, the country that originated and was the metropolis of the US, didn't become such a major economy like Japan and Germany? Don't be so ridiculous as to think all the advancement in the whole world happened because of you.Quote:
They were not in second and third place. Not even close. The Marshall Plan for Germany and the rewriting of the Japanese Constitution. They advanced those countries greatly. Do you know how many countries there are in the world? Well, Japan is now the second richest nation in the world, and Germany is third. Tell me with a straight face that that is just a coincidence.
Study history.
Not really. I wasn't even arguing with you to start with.Quote:
The difference is that you initiated them. I will gladly return them. It is the initiation of them that is schmuckish.
Ethiopia is just as capitalist as the US. If you don't think so, go make some research.Quote:
Capitalism creates opportunities. Just look at the United States, Germany, and Japan.
No, it is not difference in talent and effort. It is a difference in opportunity. You can't say an Ethiopian has the same opportunities you do. I don't even think an Ethiopian has any opportunities at all. You are just a lazy ass with your butt on a chair surfing on the internet, while someone breaks rocks 14 hours a day in Africa. You can't call it lack of effort.Quote:
Social inequality in a fair system is a result of differences in talent and effort. Both are realities, even if you refuse to acknowledge their existence.
Study history.Quote:
It is fun to explore Brazil, I hear. You have neat rainforest areas and stuff. However, we are not exploiting you.
Only shows how much things are a matter of opportunity, not of effort. Someone born in the US has much more opportunities than in Middle East, for example.Quote:
It obviously is. Our poor people are so rich they mostly have electricity, home entertainment systems, and fat bellies. No flies on the lips.
Which equals state intervention.Quote:
We have laws against unfair competition as well as monopolies.
Ignorant. That's not how things truly happen.Quote:
Not every competing company is going to allow itself to be bought by a monopoly. Also, the monopoly only gets money if people want to give it to them. If it is a problem, a rival company can be started and people who want to buy from them instead will do that. Still, I don't know why we are on this. It is easy as pie to ban monopolies, as we have in fact done.
Also, banning monopolies equals state intervention, as I said.
Semantics. Style without substance.Quote:
Again, I am not preaching anarchy. I am preaching very low level intervention. Are you reading my posts very carefully? You seem to be missing stuff.
Your personal insults are not compensating for your inability to debate.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be market freedom. But lack of state intervention only makes the contemporary world problems worse. Hunger, inequality, etc etc of what I've said before.Quote:
I am not an anarchist. You can have a free market with a certain degree of rule. Your black and white thinking is making your points off target.
Then you are not talking about the creation of poverty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
People buy things, but they also make money because people buy things.
Commercializing makes countries rich? Commercializing, as in commerce, as in trade, as in capitalism? Is that the only time we ever commercialized? I am sure you can think of other examples and discover millions of them if you study history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
No, they were not the richest countries at the beginning of the 20th century. You made that up. Hitler became powerful in the 1930's because Germany was struggling so bad and Hitler provided the country with a scapegoat and magical promises. Japan improved tremendously after the war. In the 1950's, they went through what is known as their "miracle period", and as their capitalism paid off, they reached the 1970's and 1980's and became a major economic powerhouse in the world. Now they are the second richest nation in the entire world. Capitalism. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
http://www.utc.edu/Research/AsiaProg....php?section=3
The government had been doing a bunch of crap to interfere with the value of the dollar in an attempt to improve the economy before the 1930's. It backfired. Surprise surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Some American companies do pay very low wages in third world countries. That is shitty, but it does not create poverty. People only take those sucky jobs because the alternatives suck even more. It is not slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
We didn't revise the government of England, but they are very well off economically. Germany and Japan were relatively powerful, but as I explained and linked, we tranformed them majorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I did not say all of the advancement in the world is because of us. You pulled that out of your ass.
Get an education.
I iniated the debate points, and you initiated the personal hostility. Get it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
They leaned in that direction in the early 1990's and really moved in the right direction earlier this decade. If they maintain that, you will see them tranform like Japan did over the next few decades. In the 1980's, when they were making world news because of their severe poverty, they were not. The fact that their distance runners are starting to whip major ass on the world stage is a sign that the health of the country is really improving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Our poor seem like aristocrats compared to Ethiopians because of our long maintained capitalist system and the growth that has resulted from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Do you claim people don't have differences in talent and effort?
Our poor people can get rich. I watched my parents move from poverty to major wealth with my own eyes.
Study what a counterargument is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I explained the low wage job thing. Besides, I agreed with you about how there is a history of people liking to explore Brazil. :chuckle:
Yes, because of capitalism. Capitalism provides opportunities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
... which I said we should have on a low level. Read more carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
You have severe personality issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
It does not always happen that way. The point is that it can if the public wants it to.
We should have a certain minor degree of state intervention.
:? That does not even begin to qualify as a counterargument. Take a logic class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
We should have a certain degree of state intervention. Do I need to hire a skywriter to spell that out over your house/hut for it to finally sink in?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
For someone to get rich, another one has to get poor. It's not an ever-rising amount of wealth as you think of it - the amount of wealth in the world is constant, but it is unequally divided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Commercialising makes countries rich if you get profit for it - and for you to get profit for it, the ones buying it lose money in order to buy it. What rich capitalists have done through history was to buy very cheaply from poor countries and sell very expensively to them. And don't say it's the poor countries fault, because their governments benefited from such practices - only their people didn't.Quote:
Commercializing makes countries rich? Commercializing, as in commerce, as in trade, as in capitalism? Is that the only time we ever commercialized? I am sure you can think of other examples and discover millions of them if you study history.
I didn't make that up. Don't say things if you don't know the facts.Quote:
No, they were not the richest countries at the beginning of the 20th century. You made that up. Hitler became powerful in the 1930's because Germany was struggling so bad and Hitler provided the country with a scapegoat and magical promises. Japan improved tremendously after the war. In the 1950's, they went through what is known as their "miracle period", and as their capitalism paid off, they reached the 1970's and 1980's and became a major economic powerhouse in the world. Now they are the second richest nation in the entire world. Capitalism. ;)
I will explain capitalism to you as Karl Marx explained in his book:
Capitalism is a historic and social form of production specific to an epoch. Its origins can be established and its historical end can be predicted.
The death of this means of production will happen when the working class, through a revolutionary process, reaches politic power, installing a government strictly run by the working class, aiming at socializing the means of production.
In its phase of maturity, capitalism shows a tendency to concentration of capital, with the consequent and progressive elimination of competition, generating monopolies.
The capitalist system is based on private property and exploration of work, though minimising the benefits gained from selling one's work force. The workers' misery is proportional to the monopolist concentration of capital.
I never said capitalism wasn't responsible for making Germany, Japan and the US rich. But as I said, the amount of wealth is constant, and what capitalism did wasn't to "make countries rich", but to concentrate wealth on some countries' hands (while others consequently lost wealth). Capitalism is responsible for each and every kind of social inequality nowadays. Of course it's very easy for you to praise capitalism, being born in the richest 5% of the world population, having access to health and products.. But while a single you laze, 20 people starve and suffer from corruption, exploitation, illness, etc etc.
Study Japanese history before you use it as argument. A 1990's american text isn't a trustworthy source. Trying to intervene with dollar doesn't mean their country wasn't already growing exponentially. They wouldn't have joined WWII if they weren't one of the most important potencies by the time. Look at the amount of Chinese that died in WWII, for example.Quote:
http://www.utc.edu/Research/AsiaProg....php?section=3
The government had been doing a bunch of crap to interfere with the value of the dollar in an attempt to improve the economy before the 1930's. It backfired. Surprise surprise.
Yes, people only take the torturous and unrewarding jobs because there are no others, because capitalists exploit working force at ridiculous prices, because education is sold and not given, which makes these people ignorant and easy to manipulate for the rest of their lives. The cause of their poverty is capitalism.Quote:
Some American companies do pay very low wages in third world countries. That is shitty, but it does not create poverty. People only take those sucky jobs because the alternatives suck even more. It is not slavery.
Also, I didn't mean this kind of work is slavery. There is another - often hidden or denied - form of work, which is slavery. It is much more present nowadays than you think. Yes, slavery, even in Brazil, India, Egypt, and of course Africa. I mean, what's a cheaper working force than a free one? You might be ignorant about it, because governments hide it, but slavery is still present nowadays. Finally, it's not like breaking rocks to make gravel with a hammer 14 hours a day for one or two dollars per month isn't a form of slavery.
Russia turned capitalist in 1991, very abruptly. The country is in total ruins nowadays. Corruption, exploitation, monopoly, poverty, social inequality. You don't cite that example when licking the ass of capitalism.Quote:
We didn't revise the government of England, but they are very well off economically. Germany and Japan were relatively powerful, but as I explained and linked, we tranformed them majorly.
I did not say all of the advancement in the world is because of us. You pulled that out of your ass.
Get an education.
You implied it.
Already did. You didn't - you were just taught by your government.
You are ignorant about the Soviet Union, so don't say what you don't know. In socialism ,the government provides for people, and due to the expenses of the Cold War (which were colossal), the socialist government was beginning to lack money, Do you know why you study the Cold War? Because it was responsible for breaking the Soviet Union down.Quote:
They leaned in that direction in the early 1990's and really moved in the right direction earlier this decade. If they maintain that, you will see them tranform like Japan did over the next few decades. In the 1980's, when they were making world news because of their severe poverty, they were not. The fact that their distance runners are starting to whip major ass on the world stage is a sign that the health of the country is really improving.
Read my initial fragment.
Your poor are only richer than Ethiopians because of capitalism. Already explained it above, but I'll repeat it: capital is constant in the world, it only moves around and becomes concentrated. If your country became rich, then certainly someone (or many) became poor for it to happen.Quote:
Our poor seem like aristocrats compared to Ethiopians because of our long maintained capitalist system and the growth that has resulted from it.
Very minimal ones. Nearly everything is taught. Genius musicians aren't just born that way - they were given an instrument at very young age, and developed that knowledge exponentially. You can actually make geniuses, you know.Quote:
Do you claim people don't have differences in talent and effort?
Once again, capital is constant.Quote:
Our poor people can get rich. I watched my parents move from poverty to major wealth with my own eyes.
Explore and exploit derive from the same Latin radical. Both explore and exploit are the same word in Portuguese ('explorar'). Sorry for not being born American, and not having English as my native language.Quote:
Study what a counterargument is.
I explained the low wage job thing. Besides, I agreed with you about how there is a history of people liking to explore Brazil. :chuckle:
You eplained the low wage job, but seem to understand nothing from it. I don't need to be explained it - I know it, and that is the point I've been tryign to knock into you since the beginning. The cause of low wage jobs is capitalism.
Nah, capitalism doesn't provide opportunities, capitalism concentrates opportunities. People in Africa are poor because of capitalism. If rich countries didn't intervene, iif they didn't exploit their working force or sell products, they would have developed a subsistent economy - just like the beginnings of human history - which would have evolved progressively, just like in European history.Quote:
Yes, because of capitalism. Capitalism provides opportunities.
Hey, I thought I was the one in charge of making the personal attacks. Or at least you told me so.Quote:
You have severe personality issues.
Public opinion can be easily manipulated. Example? You.Quote:
It does not always happen that way. The point is that it can if the public wants it to.
We should have a certain minor degree of state intervention.
So you do agree that capitalism without state intervention is anarchy, or even worse than it? Yay, progress.
Bah, I said your "argument" didn't qualify as argument, and gave two reasons for it: because it appealed to semantics to try to prove something, and because it was an empty statement (didn't have backing up). Of course, you didn't take logic classes - I had when studying Philosophy: logic, logical fallacies, paradoxes and antitheses, tables of truth, negation of affirmations, categorisation, non-contradiction. You simply didn't understand what I said.Quote:
:? That does not even begin to qualify as a counterargument. Take a logic class.
As I said previously: progress.Quote:
We should have a certain degree of state intervention. Do I need to hire a skywriter to spell that out over your house/hut for it to finally sink in?
The fact that wealth is unequally divided is exactly what makes money worth anything. Wealth is unequally earned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Since you are repeating your point about somebody needing to get poor for somebody to get rich, answer my question about Bill Gates. You are waffling on this. Tell me what people Bill Gates made poor. I told you what people he put to work, some of whom he made multi-millionaires who kept the cycle going and going. Your turn...
No, selling resources makes them money. The idea that they are buying back their own resources is false, unless you are talking about manufactured products composed of those resources. Of course there is a labor fee and a profit for that. Otherwise, the products would never be sold or bought... or even created.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I gave you a link and explained it. Now you give me one and explain it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
A bunch of assertion from a total crackpot. Let's talk about reality. Tell me about the great successes of Marxism in history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I already explained how offering a minorly better opportunity is not the same as taking away opportunities. I am still waiting for your rebuttal on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
If every country were truly (not purely) capitalistic, every country would be wealthy.
Like I said, people are unequal in terms of talent and effort, and nothing can be done about it. Pretending it is not the truth only causes a lot of harm.
Japan's miracle period did not happen, and they did not rise to major economic powerhouse in the 70's and 80's? I knew they did long before I read that article. They are huge competition for us. Do you know how much ass Japanese car companies kick in my country, for example? They didn't in the 40's and before. Study Japanese history. You have no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Let me get this straight... Now you say the problem is not offering minorly better opportunities. It is providing the only education, which makes third world people stupid? If that is the case, then what would it be like if we did not offer the education? If there are no other alternatives or at least no better alternatives, how could the other alternatives be better? You are contradicting yourself and makind stuff up as you go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I know that slavery still exists. You are preaching to the choir. I hate it with a passion, and I support worldwide military action to end it. Do you??????????? Now, what capitalist system companies with truly democratic governments own literal slaves? Name some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
It took Japan longer than that, and the government of Russia is totalitarian and severely oppressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Quote where I supposedly implied it. You either hallucinated it or are lying. I think I know which.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I graduated from a private high school, a private college, and a private law school. You are talking out of your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
We were involved in the Cold War too. We were their enemy in it. Did you know that? Why didn't we collapse because of it? Hmmmmm??????????? We remained the richest country in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Read my counter, and counter it instead of merely repeating yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
No. Wealth becomes concentrated in capitalistic countries. Money stimulates economies. The spending of money results in the spending of money which results in the expansion of busniess, and the effect perpetuates itself. That is why truly capitalistic countries are wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Now explain your assertion. I read your assertion, but you have not backed it up with anything.
Mozart was a musical badass at 5 because of mere teaching? Who was the superbadass who gave him his great talent? Well damn, let's learn the great teaching secret and make everybody a Mozart. How about it? Who was Hendrix's megalord teacher? Who taught Bill Gates how to be so good at business? Education and development do help talent that is already there, but people are not born even close to being equal in potential. Was Einstein so much smarter than Hulk Hogan only because he had a better teacher? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I already told you that I will gladly return your insults. We can go over this one more time if you need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Yes, I am an atheist who supports the legalization of all drugs and thinks marriage is insane and who listens to very obscure rock and space music because I am easily manipulated by popular opinion. Good call. You should be a psychiatrist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
I minored in philosophy, took logic when I did, and ended up teaching logic as part of a geometry course. However, keep making shit up. It shows that you are on the ropes and amuses me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
You made your assertion about semantics, but you did not back it up. You did not explain the supposed falsehood of my point via an explanation of ambiguity or false definition or anything else. You simply made an off the wall assertion and left it at that. Try again.
Did you bring some binoculars for the exploring expedition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Hey, if you can't back it up, just assert it again and claim even more strongly that you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Of course. The mafia is capitalistic, but they do all kinds of shit they shouldn't be allowed to do, for example. We have to have laws to limit how far out of bounds people will go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
EDIT: I just found this quote of yours in another thread.
You are claiming that medical advancement is a result of capitalism? THAT is progress! I think you are starting to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh