An interesting angle on Iraq and terrorism

[HankMorgan]

In just the past year alone, the Dow has gained a remarkable 30 percent. Meanwhile, Europe and Asia are up about 30 percent, Japan 23 percent, and emerging markets more than 60 percent. Clearly, the world is voting -- with real money -- for the American system of free-market capitalism. And it's my strong suspicion that the majority of the global investing community supports the Iraq War and a steadfast U.S. commitment to stop terrorism. They seem to know that if the United States doesn't do it, no one else will.

Lawrence Kudlow in RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/a_stock_market_vote_of_confide.html)

[RNK]

And?

I'm willing to bet a poor south american worker's $1-a-day salary that the article doesn't mention just whose pockets this profit gain is going into.

If you're trying to prove the validity of capitalism, you've failed. If you're trying to convince us about the even greater need to destroy capitalism, you've succeeded.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:08 am
I'm willing to bet a poor south american worker's $1-a-day salary that the article doesn't mention just whose pockets this profit gain is going into.

People bet on the future outcomes of events which implies you haven't read the article or you would know its outcome.

President Bush in particular, the United States and the United Kingdom in general are moving against stiff head winds from Democrats, the media and much of the rest world when it comes to the struggle against radical Islam. And yet, investors are betting their fortunes on the eventual success of the President and the US and UK.

I have no doubt about the outcome and think the bets are well placed.

[Demogorgon]

Investors bet that there woul be no economic crash in the early thirties. Indeed over enthusiastic investment contributed to the depression.

You can not claim that because investors are confident about something that it will work out. Additionally claiming that stock markets doing all right is down to the war is bizarre as other factors are leading to growth in the stock markets completely unrelated to the war. The companies benefitting from the war are arms companies. But of course they do well. They do well regardless of how the war goes, so long as there is a war. After all South Africa may have gotten bruised ad beaten during the border wars and its own internal conficts but its arms industry thrived.

Personally I am inclined to suspect this post is simple trolling. Nobody could try and use an argument this ridiculous

[luxemburg89]

and the United Kingdom in general are moving against stiff head winds from Democrats, the media and much of the rest world when it comes to the struggle against radical Islam.

You have an outstanding knowledge of UK politics, that is, I have never read a post quite so out of touch! We don't have 'democrats' we have the 'Liberal Democrats' who are a bit different to yours and are the joke party lagging miles behind the other parties. Now, our major parties are 'Labour' and 'The Conservatives' - some argue they are the same now but that's bollocks, Labour are the dead centre, with many left-centre politicians gaining influence, and the Conservatives are right-centre with many influencial more radical rightists. The public mood, that was swinging in the Conservatives' favour has now actually turned back to Labour. The majority of the country is now taking an ever-increasing anti-war stance, and there is a huge rejection of America over here at the moment. I expect that America will find its 'war on terror' will be taking a different direction to Britain's - not that I support either of course. Anything, in the current western political climate, is better than your system though.

EDIT

Hank I just read your signature. It was a good laugh. I should have expected such an idiotic post from someone with such an idiotic signature. ehem:

1
. People are smart. They always act in their best interest.

That's not necessarily smart, it's more selfish. Equally with the uncertainty of the Capitalist System a rich man may soon learn, should all his money be lost, that those whom he failed to help on the street are less likely to help him when he joins them. It was a foolish move not to share his wealth with those that needed it, and was not ultimately in his best interest.


2. Innocent until proven guilty.

Well that's fair enough.


3. No person has the right to the fruits of another's labour.

This one is my personal favourite. Then tell me what right a factory owner has to any money whatsoever? For it was not they who spent the day working the machinary was it?


4. Wealth does not just exist. It must be created.

No wealth cannot be created, it is formed. Money is created, as it is a concrete item; wealth, being a concept, is abstract and is formed as a result of that concrete item, in this context anyway. Wealth is not limited simply to money, one may have an abundance of happiness, knowledge or power, without being rich, but you still have relative wealth. Wealth is to be distributed, wealth has always existed and always will, as one man may have more knowledge or happiness than another, that cannot be avoided; it is not wealth we seek to destroy, it is the arrogance, power and exploitation it brings we wish to end.