Bad statistics for us all to think about

[Mclaren]

Here are some bad sataics for us all to think about

1. Half the people on earth are not part of the world econny

2. Half the people on the arth live on less than $2 dollars a day

3. 1 BIllion on less than $1 dollar

4. 1 Billion go hubgary at night

5. 1.5 Billion people never get a clean glass of water a day

6. 1 Women every minute dies of childbirth

We should unite in wanting to change things and get rid of africas and other countrys debt

[Guest]

Maybe we should introduce capitalism into the third world, so that Africa and other debtor nations could afford to pay their debts and not risk becoming beholden to future handouts.

[Freiheit]

everyone says: "that is so bad! we must do something!"
but no one ever does something.

[ArgueEverything]

its the 3rd world proletariat

[Son of Scargill]

Quote: from Guest on 4:40 am on Dec. 19, 2001
Maybe we should introduce capitalism into the third world, so that Africa and other debtor nations could afford to pay their debts and not risk becoming beholden to future handouts.

Capitalism has been running rife in Africa for 200 yrs now,that's why it's up shit creek,and don't forget how most american and european landowners and shipping companies made their fortunes.Also there's the gold,diamonds,copper,spices,ivory,etc.etc.that made a fortune for the rich(white) minority.I don't know if your post was to get a reaction,or you don't really understand the capitalistic animal,but it's about maximising profits in whatever ways you can get away with.In the third world,you can get away with a lot.

Also we could stop forcing them to buy arms under threats of sanctions.Maybe they'd be able to pay back a bit more,and there might be a few less wars.(Mind you,with the interest on the loans,these countries will never get out of debt,and I think that that suits the corporations fine.)


(Edited by Son of Scargill at 11:34 am on Dec. 19, 2001)

[Reuben]

Good Post Son of Scargill. I agree totally and was astounded
by the concept of "Let's bring capitalism to Africa. Capitalism is what they have in Africa!

People seem to think that the Afluence here in the west derives purely from the way that we organize our economies and that if this were to be introduced globally everyone could live this affluently/ This shows no awareness of the RELATIONSHIP betweeen the western industrialized nations and poorer nations.

These poorer nations exist as the necessary counterpart to more affluyent nations. How else would those of us in the west be able to exist with 70% of our workforce employed in the tertiary industry.

[Kez]

Adding ot what SOS said, imperialism is the highest form of capitalism, therefore capitalism has been in action in africa for 200 years as said above.

What is needed in africa is a setup of government co-ops so that the people directly are affected and become more prosperous, to contain their needs, the to fill their wants.

comrade kamo

[Guest]

Well then I wonder what the people of third world would eat, if they received no wages at all. Maybe they'd fill themselves with North Korea's choiciest meal-nothing.

From reading the posts in this forum I've come to the realization that most here now even less about capitalism then they do about communism. You seem to ascribe every bad thing under the sun, from cancer to poverty, to a devil called capitalism.
In this analysis individuals are absolved of any responsibility, lest they be capitalists, otherwise their behavior is excused by a logic that goes: 'the devil made them do it.'
Terrorists destroyed the WTC, well its not their fault it was the system, it was capitalism, the devil made them do it.
People are starving in Iraq, well it's not saddams fault, it's the devil that is doing it.
Stalin killed millions of people, well it wasn't his fault, he was trying to preserve communism agaisnt capitalist aggression, the devil made him do it.
Furthermore, you improperly use imperialism as a synonym for capitalism. Imperialism, with a colonial system, is predicated on a mercantilist economic system. In such a system the mother country literally exploits the resources of the colony, and uses the colony as a market. The best examples of this system are the colonial American colonies, India and the Belgian Congo.
Capitalism is quite different. It is predicated on a market exchange, in which 'things' being exchanged are of equal value simply because they are exchanged. You see the worker in the third wolrd that makes goods for the first world is not coerced into this work. No one came to his hut, or shack, or whatever he lived in, and put a gun to his head and said work for Nike. As a matter of fact there wasn't even a metaphorical gun. He saw a choice: stay in his agrarian lifestyle, which I feel the need to remind you as you sit comfortably in front of your PC, is not idealic; or go work in a factory. If he is working in the factory he picked the second. Certainly his/her reward may only be the ability to drink Coke and watch shitty TV, but who are you to criticize that choice. Believe it or not material well-being satisfies many people, especially if unlike armchair socialist who live in the comfort provided by the capitalist system, they don't have much.
I think rather your espousal of socialism fails to comprehend the benefits that capitalism has brought to humanity, everywhere it has been allowed to set foot, be it Western Europea, North America or East Asia, it has made life more liveable.
Over the last decade Capitalism has brought 1 billion people out of abject povert in places where socialism failed: India and China. It has created wealth in places where socialism died without a whimper, like the Czech Republic, and Poland.
Ofcourse for you capitalism and the free market has failed miserably. You cite africa as an example of where it simply promotes exploitation.
Well are you sure that Africans interact within capitalism, do they have the freedom to move capital, to move themselves as labor, to information, to technology and goods. No they don't. Their governments have strict controls over the movement of such things, the same goes for nations where despite the fall of communism there is no success. Russia for instance retains its authoritarian structure despite the fall of communism. It hasn't experienced capitalism, there is no freedom of movement of capital, labor, goods, information or technology. Before you ask, I will say that I derive this definition of free-market capitalism from the objectives put forth by free trade agreements like the EU and NAFTA.
It seems to me that your support of socialism is also based on an unwarrented intellectual arrogance, which I ascribe more to your desirers to piss off your parents and be "counter culturish" than on your intellectual prowess. Do you think you know better than all of those whom you call "uneducated" throughout this forum. Do you fellows, in your infinite intellectual bounty and benevolence, think socialism after having hurt so many, and having inspired the sort of government economic centralization that continues to hurt so many, can help. It can only hurt more.
So rather then trying to stop the solution from reaching the impoverished by promoting a system that has brought nothing but ruin anywhere it has gotten a foothold, try and help the poor. Try and let them have the same opportunity those in the post-industrialized world have.

[libereco]

Try and let them have the same opportunity those in the post-industrialized world have.

you mister, are an capitalist idealist. not a realist.

the WTO and also NAFTA bring anything but the same opportunity to these people, they exploit them and get them under the control of the big guys. the corporates.

capitalism in reality is not as fair as in principle, it sounds in theory, you know.

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from Guest on 1:52 pm on Dec. 20, 2001
Well then I wonder what the people of third world would eat, if they received no wages at all. Maybe they'd fill themselves with North Korea's choiciest meal-nothing.

that argument is asinine as north koreans do receive wages, as they live in state capitalist nation. and i hope you do realise that north koreans have it good compared to most (capitalist) african nations.



From reading the posts in this forum I've come to the realization that most here now even less about capitalism then they do about communism. You seem to ascribe every bad thing under the sun, from cancer to poverty, to a devil called capitalism.
In this analysis individuals are absolved of any responsibility, lest they be capitalists, otherwise their behavior is excused by a logic that goes: 'the devil made them do it.'
Terrorists destroyed the WTC, well its not their fault it was the system, it was capitalism, the devil made them do it.
People are starving in Iraq, well it's not saddams fault, it's the devil that is doing it.
Stalin killed millions of people, well it wasn't his fault, he was trying to preserve communism agaisnt capitalist aggression, the devil made him do it.

this rant comes close to an ad hominem argument. how do you know what you assert is false isnt, in fact, true? give facts. humans are social animals. they are influenced enormously by their environment, and the structure of the economy will play a crucial role in any given society. this is accepted by any sociologist with half a brain.

why do you think the rate of mass terrorism has increased dramatically over the last 30 years? did ppl suddenly just wake up one day and decide they want to end their lives and take hundreds of others with them? only MORONS dont look at the social context in which phenomena like terrorism occur. history repeats itself unless we adapt.



Furthermore, you improperly use imperialism as a synonym for capitalism. Imperialism, with a colonial system, is predicated on a mercantilist economic system. In such a system the mother country literally exploits the resources of the colony, and uses the colony as a market. The best examples of this system are the colonial American colonies, India and the Belgian Congo.
Capitalism is quite different. It is predicated on a market exchange, in which 'things' being exchanged are of equal value simply because they are exchanged. You see the worker in the third wolrd that makes goods for the first world is not coerced into this work. No one came to his hut, or shack, or whatever he lived in, and put a gun to his head and said work for Nike. As a matter of fact there wasn't even a metaphorical gun. He saw a choice: stay in his agrarian lifestyle, which I feel the need to remind you as you sit comfortably in front of your PC, is not idealic; or go work in a factory. If he is working in the factory he picked the second.

lol. your generalisations, bold assertions and manipulative arguments may fool some ppl, but not I.

firstly: your assertion that capitalism does not = imperialism. the argument is such that A does not =B. but then, to 'prove' it, you ADD to the meaning of B, saying 'imperialism within a colonial system....'. We never SAID imperialism within a colonial system! we said imperialism, full stop (that is, the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations).

it is clear that, if using the above definition, the US is imperialist. from its birth till the present it has been seeking to extend its borders, from the invasion, acquisition and integration of mexican land into texas to the present afghan war to grab a stake in the central asian region's oil supplies.

not to mention the numerous dictators the US has supported bcos of their free trade policies or support of america, policies which i am sure you applaud (pinochet and the chicago boys, suharto, malcolm fraser, the shah of iran, the list goes on).

secondly:your assertion that workers in the 3rd world arent coerced into working for corporations is also false. ever heard of burma? the military dictatorship there love corporations and force their people to build railways and work for the benefit of these corporations. this is well documented. dont u think its funny how there are no sanctions on the oppressive burmese gov, when there are on iraq?

you say there is not even a 'metaphorical gun' to the workers head. have you ever been starving, or had to support a brother or sister, with a prostitute mother (ah the benefits of capitalism for the 3rd world) and a father who is either working all day to support the family or has left the family? admittedly, i haven't, but i understand it more than you probably do because my parents both come from the 3rd world, and i have seen it with my own eyes. i have seen women for whom there is little difference between skin and bone because they give whatever little food they have to their baby. they work for their survival and the survival of their family. if they dont work, they will starve and die. for all intents and purposes, they ARE forced to work.



Certainly his/her reward may only be the ability to drink Coke and watch shitty TV, but who are you to criticize that choice. Believe it or not material well-being satisfies many people, especially if unlike armchair socialist who live in the comfort provided by the capitalist system, they don't have much.

we criticise that choice because we know that in a socialist society they can be offered SO much more. hell, even under a capitalist society they can have a lot more than they do at present. most TNCs can afford to pay the workers in the 3rd world a lot more, and can improve their appaling work conditions as well.


I think rather your espousal of socialism fails to comprehend the benefits that capitalism has brought to humanity, everywhere it has been allowed to set foot, be it Western Europea, North America or East Asia, it has made life more liveable.
Over the last decade Capitalism has brought 1 billion people out of abject povert in places where socialism failed: India and China. It has created wealth in places where socialism died without a whimper, like the Czech Republic, and Poland.

firstly, socialism has never been tried. the czech republic and poland were both state capitalist, as well as poland. their economy was based on the stalinism model, that of socialism in 1 country, which was contradictory to marx's own teachings.

and before you go on about the 'benefits' of capitalism to east asia, take a look at the social problems like that of prostitution, and the horrible working conditions that suffer. also look at the asian economic crisis a few yrs back that resulted in millions losing their jobs. your beloved capitalism, alas, is an system of eternal booms and busts. that probably doesnt mean much to you, you probably have a stable income, but most ppl in this world dont, believe it or not.

and, btw, if u havent kept up with the news, the FORMER MARXISTS won the last polish elections. that is the 'reformed' marxist party. the polish ppl didnt like the capitalist reforms of the rightwing solidarity party so they kicked them out.


Ofcourse for you capitalism and the free market has failed miserably. You cite africa as an example of where it simply promotes exploitation.
Well are you sure that Africans interact within capitalism, do they have the freedom to move capital, to move themselves as labor, to information, to technology and goods. No they don't. Their governments have strict controls over the movement of such things, the same goes for nations where despite the fall of communism there is no success. Russia for instance retains its authoritarian structure despite the fall of communism. It hasn't experienced capitalism, there is no freedom of movement of capital, labor, goods, information or technology. Before you ask, I will say that I derive this definition of free-market capitalism from the objectives put forth by free trade agreements like the EU and NAFTA.

your definition of capitalism is conveniently narrow. by your definition, no nation has been capitalist until the last 20 years with the exception, perhaps, of the US. previous to the last 20 years, most of europe had labor parties with very protectionist policies. but most ppl still accept that they were capitalist. similar with africa. they may not be exactly 'free market' capitalist states, but neither is any country. the US still has tariffs, like the EU.

the idea of free trade depends on the romantic idea of 'equilibrium', a highly mathematical and precise equality in supply and demand. the problem is its impossible. yet the free marketists continue to press their cause, which revolves around this long disproved impossibility.

[/quote]

(Edited by ArgueEverything at 3:46 pm on Dec. 20, 2001)

[gooddoctor]

what was that guest wanker going on about before? what a bore.

[Guest]

A communism, socialism, they never existed. The whole time the devil made them do it...it was the state capitalists all along.

You guys ever read Oedipus Rex. Oedipus had some real good intentions as King of Thebes, yet the fates foretold that his rule would bring about terrible plagues,etc. to Thebes. When Oedipus realized that the distruction of Thebes was his fault he punished himself. He didn't say, 'oh I didn't know that there was a curse on me'. Or that it was the fates and not him that were responsible. He gouged his own eyes out and executed 'justice' upon himself.
You guys on the otherhand keep finding excuses, like, 'communism has never existed.' You guys sound like the old stalinist of the USSR when Kruschev took power and enlightened the world the the crimes of Stalin. The old supporters of Stalin, rather than confess to their complicity simply said that they didn't know, that there were good intentions, that it wasn't communism, but stalinism.
Well I'm not surprised. You espouse an economic system which rids individuals of liberty and responsibility, why not absolve yourselves of ideological responsibility as well?
Oh and by the way, no one has it worse than N. Koreans. They don't get wages, they don't get food. They get a socialist system that spends all its money on weapons.
Then, do you know what Ad Hominen means, are you referring to a possible logical fallacy on my part?
Humans a social animal? Believe it or not that is far from being an established fact. The first person that said so was Aristotle, he simply said it "humans are political animals" in The Politics, he didn't prove it. Hobbes would disagree, Locke would say half and half, Rousseau whom you leftist love, would disagree. Moreover sociologist would agree in the same sense that priest have to agree that there is a god.
Perhaps terrorism has increased over the last 30 years, because it was only deviced in its modern form over that span of time.
Sure there were no suicide bombers 100 years ago, but then again fuses and timers were more complex and bulky.
You definition of imperialism is based on an implied dominance of one nation over another, capitalism is based on mutual beneficial exchange. What good is silicon from the desert of Peru if it can be used to make microprocessors in California?
Yes the US like the EU still has tariffs, but were it not for nitwits like yourself who are manipulated by reactionary labor unions that want to keep third worlders impoverished for the sake of a few thousand US jobs whose workers would be better served by learning a new skill in the modern job market, those tariffs would be eliminated. Protectionist tariffs are anti-capitalist.
The idea of a neo-classical equilibrium to which i think you refer is null and void. Most economic policy is Keynsian. It is ironic to have a socialist speak of the impossibility of an economic system.

For future reference when you argue, don't simply accuse the other party of logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks without pointing them out. It is rude and betrays the overall lack of grasp you have for polemic.

[el che1220]

ok..what you're implying is ....let the people of Third-World countries do our dirty jobs....our low and hazardous jobs..so we can enjoy ourselves..they are they slaves..we're their masters.....let more than 5 billion people fatten their masters.....lol...well..it's pretty easy to advocate such a world when you're on the good side....:)

[Guest]

OK...so if the opportunity for individuals to increase their wealth isn't the answer, what is? I see a lot of *****ing about the world around here but nobody offering up any real solutions. So, el che1220, what exactly do you think we should do?

[Capitalist]

Capitalism = Freedom

Freedom to do good, or bad

Capitalism to good, or bad

Evil Capitalism = slave labor, low or unfair wages, deadly pollution, Mafia controlled competition...etc

Good Capitalism - quality products, decent prices, decent wages, new technology, better medicines, more innovation, better service, ......

People need incentive, via compensation (money, recognition, etc.), or they will not contribute to society.

The individual's needs must be met, before they can contribute to society. Capitalism enables this.

When conquering African tribes sold their conquered to the White Man?

The Diamond trade is horrific - children's hands being cut off?

Who is guilty?

What is guilty?

Is it Capitalism?

Or Freedom?

Perhaps both are guilty - should we eliminate both?

No!

Doesn't mean you eliminate Capitalism or Freedom - just those who abuse it.

Let me remind everyone that about 1 billion slaves live in China. That is where the United States purchases most of its slave labor from.

[Guest]

hey capitalist, you are as ignorant as the socialist/marxists/leninist/stalinist/trotskyites/maoist/kimist/castroist/anarchists
in this forum.

Mercantilism is a system apart from both capitalism and socialism.

[CommieBastard]

My friend capitalist, you claim that people cannot work without incentive. Well i would agree, but why do you only recognise material incentive?
is there no such thing as the incentive of the satisfaction of a job well done?

There is evidence that this can work.
The Anarchist organisation that ran the Barcelona Bus Company during the Spanish Civil war had no leaders, had no interest in profit, and provided for it's members equally and fairly.
The workers came up with the idea of also using their bus factory to double as a munitions factory, and their bus production actual went up from the time before when it was run by capitalists.

They were highly efficient, highly motivated and highly productive. You don't need capitalism, you just need freedom. You are right to say you should not remove both, just one of them...

[Moskitto]

Guest.

Can you explain what is wrong with Rosa Luxemburg?

Exactly. People like you won't or can't mention her because you know she'll destroy your ideas.

So communists hate Trade Unions. Well Why did Rosa Luxemburg come up with the Mass Strike Theory when she obviously haved Unions?

So communists are a bunch of Violent thugs. So Explain Rosa Luxemburg's Pacafism?

So communists hate Freedom of Speech. So explain my signature quote? the the numerous other quotes on Freedom of speech.

So all communists like Stalin. PISS OFF Stalin killed Communists, Remember Trotsky, Kirov, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, 1/3 of the party, most of the politiburo? That's how much Stalin hated Communists.

Oh and for the information of Capitalists, Businesses called "Worker Co-Operatives" can be very successful due to lower Labour turnover and they aren't exactly designed to be all profits for 1 director.

And North Korea is not Communist. Even CIA admits that. It's a Hereditory Dictatorship, aka a Monarchy. A Monarchy likes class distinctions, A communist doesn't.

[flames of the flag]

hey
since you guys are all "rebels" you probably won't agree with me when i say that small african countries should be amalgamated into bigger unions to strengthen their economies. Alot of third world countries actually get quite some revenue but spend it all trying to pay of their debt to the first world when it could be used building water treatment plants or irrigation. That's what drop the debt is a good concept.
The way the world is now the first world survives off the suffering of the third and if we want all those "bad stats" to start improving into good stats (sorry for the shitty wording) then that has to change.

[flames of the flag]

though the question still remains:
what type of governement should those unions have?

[Moskitto]

Quote: from flames of the flag on 1:14 am on Dec. 21, 2001
hey
since you guys are all "rebels" you probably won't agree with me when i say that small african countries should be amalgamated into bigger unions to strengthen their economies. Alot of third world countries actually get quite some revenue but spend it all trying to pay of their debt to the first world when it could be used building water treatment plants or irrigation. That's what drop the debt is a good concept.
The way the world is now the first world survives off the suffering of the third and if we want all those "bad stats" to start improving into good stats (sorry for the shitty wording) then that has to change.


African countries need to work together, Infact the whole third world needs to work together.

African countries are in the unfortunate position of being the legs that hold capitalism. If we take down the legs, we take out capitalism.

We need a government in the African countries which aren't going to use Africa as merely a continent for the cheap production of raw materials.

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from Guest on 6:46 pm on Dec. 20, 2001
A communism, socialism, they never existed. The whole time the devil made them do it...it was the state capitalists all along.

You guys ever read Oedipus Rex. Oedipus had some real good intentions as King of Thebes, yet the fates foretold that his rule would bring about terrible plagues,etc. to Thebes. When Oedipus realized that the distruction of Thebes was his fault he punished himself. He didn't say, 'oh I didn't know that there was a curse on me'. Or that it was the fates and not him that were responsible. He gouged his own eyes out and executed 'justice' upon himself.
You guys on the otherhand keep finding excuses, like, 'communism has never existed.' You guys sound like the old stalinist of the USSR when Kruschev took power and enlightened the world the the crimes of Stalin. The old supporters of Stalin, rather than confess to their complicity simply said that they didn't know, that there were good intentions, that it wasn't communism, but stalinism.
Well I'm not surprised. You espouse an economic system which rids individuals of liberty and responsibility, why not absolve yourselves of ideological responsibility as well?
Oh and by the way, no one has it worse than N. Koreans. They don't get wages, they don't get food. They get a socialist system that spends all its money on weapons.
Then, do you know what Ad Hominen means, are you referring to a possible logical fallacy on my part?
Humans a social animal? Believe it or not that is far from being an established fact. The first person that said so was Aristotle, he simply said it "humans are political animals" in The Politics, he didn't prove it. Hobbes would disagree, Locke would say half and half, Rousseau whom you leftist love, would disagree. Moreover sociologist would agree in the same sense that priest have to agree that there is a god.
Perhaps terrorism has increased over the last 30 years, because it was only deviced in its modern form over that span of time.
Sure there were no suicide bombers 100 years ago, but then again fuses and timers were more complex and bulky.
You definition of imperialism is based on an implied dominance of one nation over another, capitalism is based on mutual beneficial exchange. What good is silicon from the desert of Peru if it can be used to make microprocessors in California?
Yes the US like the EU still has tariffs, but were it not for nitwits like yourself who are manipulated by reactionary labor unions that want to keep third worlders impoverished for the sake of a few thousand US jobs whose workers would be better served by learning a new skill in the modern job market, those tariffs would be eliminated. Protectionist tariffs are anti-capitalist.
The idea of a neo-classical equilibrium to which i think you refer is null and void. Most economic policy is Keynsian. It is ironic to have a socialist speak of the impossibility of an economic system.

For future reference when you argue, don't simply accuse the other party of logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks without pointing them out. It is rude and betrays the overall lack of grasp you have for polemic.


when a person says something about themselves, do you automatically believe it? no, unless you are a fool. you decide for yourself whether it is true by looking at what that person did.

same with marxism. just because the soviets claimed they were marxists, doesnt mean they actually were. to determine whether they were, you must look at their economic and social policies and see whether they were compatible with marx. they werent.

you seem to think that only AFTER the USSR and the easten bloc collapsed, we decided that they werent communist. it didnt work like that. most western communists were and are trotskyists, who hated stalin more than any capitalist did. they continually denounced the stalinist regime, EVEN when it was having economic successes between 1950 and 1970.

having a state controlled economy does not neccesarily mean a country is socialist you know. communists arent surprised at the failure of north korea, firstly because it has a bureacracy(which neccesarily form a class of their own, thereby defeating the purpose of marxism) and secondly because they are isolated economically. socialism cannot survive in one country. capitalism is a world economic system, and the system that replaces it must also be.

terrorism has increased in the past 30 yrs because of widespread poverty and disillusionment with the west. its no coincidence that most terrorists come from poor countries. but ppl like you prefer not to look at details like that, you merely isolate each terrorist, demonise him, and do nothing to fix the problem.

as for north korea being extremely poor. no doubt it is. but lets compare it with india, which you have previously praised.

life expectancy in n korea is 71. its 62 in india.
infant mortality is 23 in n korea. its 63 in india.
even better: literacy in n korea 99%. 52% in india.

and where do u get the idea that india was once socialist? gandhi favoured a socialist model but nehru took the capitalist path. there is state, kerela, in the south that is governed by the communist party(by popular vote) but thats it.

you have now admitted that capitalist countries still have tariffs and protectionist policies. but they are still capitalist. likewise, africa, with its protectionist policies, is still capitalist. and the failures of the african economy can largely be blamed on capitalism.

capitalism is based on imperialism because over the last 50 yrs, the capitalist powers have seeked to extend capitalism by using violent means. this is, actually, a requirement for the capitalist's survival. if they want to realise surplus labour they need to exapand their markets abroad, and history has proven that they will use force if neccesary. the sharp increase in colonialism after the economic depression of the 1870s was due to countries needing to find a secure resource base, as well as a new market for selling goods. never mind that in the process millions are killed and lose their culture.

its funny how you anarcho-capitalists argue now that protectionist policies are anti-capitalist and should be gotten rid of. i need not remind you that in its earlier capitalist days, the US and much of europe was VERY protectionist and this allowed to become economically secure. the US wouldnt have been the economic success it is without those earlier protectionist policies. but now you wont allow africa and asia to enjoy the same tariffs that the US did in its early life?

read 'the crisis of global capitalism' by capitalist spectator george soros. he points out that there are still many pseudo-economists who believe in the equilibrium theory and other outdated dogmas.

as for not pointing out your fallacies, i did. you claimed A does not equal B, but then changed the meaning of A to prove it.

[I Will Deny You]

I am not a capitalist or a socialist. (Or a communist or fascist.) I just thought I should get that out of the way.
A truly perfect system would see everyone born equal (like what we're supposed to believe happens in socialist nations, if we believe they ever existed). Then everyone would have the opportunity to work wherever they wanted, and of course no one could be equally successful. People would not be paid like they are in socialist countries. In a socialist country, a special-ed teacher in an inner city school would be paid the same amount as a lunch lady at a private school. They also would not be paid like people in capitalist countries (I don't believe there are any capitalist countries left, but you know what I mean). The CEO of Gap is making around $50 million per year for a job that basically consists of sitting at a nice desk, while the laborers in his sweat shop are making less than a dollar per hour. There should be a basic range where everyone gets paid (somewhere between a living wage plus notable wealth and more than 50% wealth, in ideal circumstances). Things like health care, education, etc. should all be universal and it would be better that this be done by a democratic government with an motivation to serve the people (re-election) than a private corporation.
This is the short version of what could be 100% fair and still work. Obviously, you don't see it anywhere. In a way, you're all right on some points and wrong on others, although I tend to lean toward the socialist point of view. Some people I know who consider themselves socialists are fighting for real democracy in socialist countries, and if they ran the world everything would surely be perfect. Some capitalists I know fight for social justice, and the world would be better off with them as the swinging dicks, too. Instead of setting absolutes, though, it would be a lot more practical to try and bring more justice to each system one step at a time. Fight Bill Gates, fight Fidel.

[flames of the flag]

hey
we talk and talk about the 1st world and the 3rd world but what about the 2nd...where do they come into all this? Does the 2nd world even exist?
assuming it does:
the 1st world just rapes and pillages and survives off the 3rd world and has no intent of helping them while the 3rd world just sits down and takes it
can't the 2nd world act as the provider of compassion in this situation, can't they of aid money with the intent of really being charitable? without charging interest, without asking anything at all in return?
perhapes act as an example to the first world?

[I Will Deny You]

The second world? Maybe it's those little Polynesian island nations, in the sections that don't rely on tourism. The ones that aren't on either end of imperialism.

[maria11r]

i believe that there is no such thing as the second world. either you are cold or you are hot. being warm is not belonging. it just sucks that there will not be a "provider of compassion".

[flames of the flag]

no
there will be a nation to act as a giver of compassion.
I am going to make sure somehow. Just donate lost of money (anything you don't absolutely need) to charity. if everyone did that the 3rd world would start advancing in rank

[Guest]

Yeah, of course they would. If we all gave our spare cash to impoverished nations, things would get a lot better. Mogadishu would turn into Seattle. If we'd only dump more resources, an infrastructure and sustainable legal/political system would magically appear.

Take another bong hit, my man.

[ArgueEverything]

Quote: from Guest on 4:14 am on Dec. 22, 2001
Yeah, of course they would. If we all gave our spare cash to impoverished nations, things would get a lot better. Mogadishu would turn into Seattle. If we'd only dump more resources, an infrastructure and sustainable legal/political system would magically appear.

Take another bong hit, my man.

not just resources, but practical help as well. its not difficult to turn a shattered economy into a booming one. it was done in japan and germany due to the pumping in of huge amounts of money.

the dumping in of resources would actually be reparitions for the resources that were stolen from the 3rd world during colonialism. resources that the west would not be currently prosperous without.

[Guest]

I dont know if what i have to say is very relevant or at least as influential as other people have replied, but being a student at a private school i am currently undergoing studies in developing countries and have been taught to understand the poor conditions of life these people have to cope. What i do understand is first world countries manufacture goods in these struggling countries where labour is cheap and they can earn their billions to sell in countries such as the US. So many people over the world say that they wish they could help these poor natons and say how glad they are that they are not living under such poor conditions and how no one should have to go through suxh a cruel lifestyle. But how many people do help, i mean really get out there and do something. Let me give you an example, look at Nike, they manufacture their goods in such countries as it is a much cheaper way of getting their products to sell for millions, then there are these charities that do jack shit for such places as these people could get so much more in return for their work and in general to help them live a much better life.

[Guest]

is there a point to all this repetitive arguing? because it would seem as if there is not. is someone getting class credit for this?

[guerrillaradio]

Yeah America's exploitation of the Third World is terrible. The Second World does not exist, because global capitalism (which is what we're effectively in now) makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, therefore the gap between rich and poor increases and you're either stable or unstable.

[peaccenicked]

is there any point to this repetitive arguing?
I never repeat myself
I repeat I never repeat myself.
So whats the argument?