The United States in #1....(just check out all of these facts!!!)

[hiphop]

Quoting Bubba:

I think so: I think economic freedom (capitalism, the only "-ism" that occurs on its own) is why we're doing so well: competition, economic rewards for offering the best product at the lowest price. The gulf between the United States and the Third World is NOT an unequal distribution of wealth or resources: it's an unequal distribution of economic freedom and the social structures necessary to maintain it (most notably, the rule of law).


At any rate, I believe I've thoroughly discredited the notion - implied or outright stated - that the United States is nothing more than a giant, bloated consumer of goods. We are also a great producer of goods, feeding much of the rest of the world, serving as one of this planet's great breadbaskets.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, I say so, Bubba; the States are great producers of goods - and great producers of lots of crap, too. I wouldn?t have thought of food in the first place, more of weaponry f.e., but fine, you got a point there (and remember that I dig REAL American cars).

Anyway, the gulf between the United States - OR Europe - and the Third World is an unequal "distribution" of wealth.

The difference between the U.S. and Europe may be one of economic freedom/ laws (the European Union?s just trying to catch up), but the difference to Third World States - no way.

Are we stealing? Yes, constantly. In a kind of reversed Robin Hood manner: steal from the poor, give it to the rich ones.

Just admit it, it doesn?t make you or me a bad person, we don?t direct the price of the bananas or whatever. First of all, America was stolen (remember the Indians, who believed that land belongs to every being and is not buyable?), and Europe build up big part of its wealth with stolen wealth and resources from its colonies.

 

[hiphop]

And really, we all know I don't care about what goes on outside my country except for my bombs

Z-

No, we only know that you think photos of babies with guns are wonderful.

Being one of the NICE guys, I may ask: Did I misinterprete your post (maybe you just thought that the baby and therefore the photo is wonderful and you just didn?t see the gun)?

 

[speedracer]

China has the fastest growing economy in the world, in fact it's expected to overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world within the next ten to twenty years.

Well, China also has four times the population of the US.

 

[kariatari]

I thought that Japan had the fastest growing economy...

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I thought that Japan had the fastest growing economy...

Err, not since the Asian financial crisis of the late 90s. The last I heard they were still in recession perhaps even economic depression.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

China has the fastest growing economy in the world, in fact it's expected to overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world within the next ten to twenty years.[/b]

From the CIA factbook:

"In late 1978 the Chinese leadership began moving the economy from a sluggish Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented system. Whereas the system operates within a political framework of strict Communist control, the economic influence of non-state managers and enterprises has been steadily increasing. The authorities have switched to a system of household responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization, increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry, permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprise in services and light manufacturing, and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and investment. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. "

My hypothesis is that economic freedom is why the United States and Japan are so successful. As a counterargument, you present China, the "fastest growing economy in the world."

But the reason its economy is growing is economic reforms, reforms that increased economic freedom.

My point is still made.

For the US to serve as "one of this planet's great breadbaskets" it would have to export a significant amount of what it produces, correct? And yet the United States imports far more than it exports, which is what the accumulated external debt of the US is $2.3 trillion [1] (compare that to the external debt of all developing countries added together - $2.5 trillion [2]. Also compare the $20 billion annually the US pays to service that debt to the $300 billion developing countries pay.)

If the US is the richest country in the world (and I don't dispute that it is) then why does it owe so much money?

Sources:
[1]IMF handbook of International Financial Statistics, November 2001
[2]The Economist, Febuary 2002

Your argument is fallacious: you're saying we have a large trade deficit (which I readily grant), therefore we don't feed the rest of the world.

It's very possible that we have a large trade deficit overall DESPITE the fact that we have a trade surplus in agricultural products. In fact, that appears to be the case.

From Oregon State University's Government Information Sharing Project[url], the amount of kilograms exported and imported in 1998:

The first quantity is exports; the second is imports (i.e., "foreign exports").


DURUM WHEAT SEED FOR SOWING
Exports: 1,354,856
Imports: 0

WHEAT AND MESLIN SEED FOR SOWING (EXCEPT DURUM)
95,233,255
0

OATS SEED FOR SOWING
1,678,254
22,059

CORN (MAIZE), OTHER THAN YELLOW CORN, SEED, NESOI
84,153,005
1,547,938

POPCORN, UNPOPPED, EXCEPT SEED
99,445,346
19,537

RICE IN THE HUSK (PADDY OR ROUGH)
1,744,390,589
239,263

RICE, BASMATI, HUSKED (BROWN)
3,243,012
0


I could, LITERALLY, go on and on.

Like I said, BREADBASKET OF THE WORLD.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Yes, I say so, Bubba; the States are great producers of goods - and great producers of lots of crap, too. I wouldn?t have thought of food in the first place, more of weaponry f.e., but fine, you got a point there (and remember that I dig REAL American cars).

Whether you considered it or not, we do produce and export a HELL of a lot of food.

I will grant that we also spend a lot building up our military, but it would be foolish to decrease military spending in this very dangerous world, and the reality is, we are probably underfunding the military compared to its needs.

Either way, if the U.S. produces a lot of "crap," so what? Free market economies guide producers to create what consumers will buy. The only alternative is state control - which failed absolutely in the Soviet Union and is unsuccessful in China that they are moving toward free markets to keep up with us.

Anyway, the gulf between the United States - OR Europe - and the Third World is an unequal "distribution" of wealth.

The difference between the U.S. and Europe may be one of economic freedom/ laws (the European Union?s just trying to catch up), but the difference to Third World States - no way.

Are we stealing? Yes, constantly. In a kind of reversed Robin Hood manner: steal from the poor, give it to the rich ones.

Just admit it, it doesn?t make you or me a bad person, we don?t direct the price of the bananas or whatever. First of all, America was stolen (remember the Indians, who believed that land belongs to every being and is not buyable?), and Europe build up big part of its wealth with stolen wealth and resources from its colonies.

Every time I hear the "reverse Robin Hood" metaphor, I am forced to scratch my head and wonder: the poor don't have that much, so what is there to steal?

But I digress.

To say that we stole our land from the Indians - true as it may well be - is to evade the issue. You're saying that we are CURRENTLY, THIS VERY MOMENT, stealing from the Third World; the defrauding of native Americans 150 years ago is utterly irrelevant.

How are we "constantly" stealing from the Third World now?

We're certainly not sending our military, marauder-style, to steal food from Africa. In fact, last time our military was in Africa (Somalia), it was to protect food that the industrialized world was sending to it.

The only stealing I can think of is the following case: corporations lease land from the local government for next to nothing, clear-cut the land, and leave. But why does THAT happen?

Simple: those countries have very little private property - note how the company leases the land from the government. If the bulk of the land was owned privately by native-born people, and if those private property rights were respected by the rule of law, then MOST of the problem would be solved. Third World logging would be comparable to American logging, which is MUCH better for the locals (not to mention the environment).


I reiterate: "The gulf between the United States and the Third World is NOT an unequal distribution of wealth or resources: it's an unequal distribution of economic freedom and the social structures necessary to maintain it (most notably, the rule of law)."

 

[hiphop]

What do you mean, breadbasket? It doesn?t mean that U.S. gives all this away for free, does it? Ok, great that you are a producer of so much food, but how much over-production is thrown into U.S. dustbins while others die of hunger?

Then, an interseting point that you didn?t touch, is the 20 bil/ 300 bil difference. Even if I am not sure that this number is exact (but I can research a little if you are interested), points like this make clear that our nice rich nations are thieves. Oh, not in the sense that they are haunted by police, or the responsible persons go to prison, but in the sense that interest rates are directed to let our wealth prosper, while it makes poor countries even poorer.

Last but not least: Those statistics are interesting, the ones about how much export volume (in dollars) the U.S. makes with arms exports, is even more interesting. You know, the fun thing about it is: who makes the money? The 30,000 people that were laid off at Boeing? The average American person? No. But who pays for supporting those exports? The ones who make the big deal? No, the taxpayer (over the Pentagon).

Who pays for the military training the Pentagon finances in over 70 (yes that is SEVENTY! Expect a few Bin Ladens to creep out, brothers!) countries in all the world? And who pays that? YOU!!!

Now, I am really laughing my ass off, how supportive you are to the fake of democracy you?re living in. Just answer me: I really really think that more than 50 percent of Americans would be against this special waste program, if they were informed about it properly. Maybe the so-called civil society would be too lazy to get away from the T.V. hail star wars propaganda, but tell me:

Why does America never vote about those issues, military spending, f.e.? Why does the Pentagon, backed by Congress, poop out another billions to General Electric when their betrayals were proven? What?s up with your Enron et al. crisis? Lots of talking, but nothing happening, except of fishy announcements?

Oh, it must be because you live in a democracy.

 

[hiphop]

Whether you considered it or not, we do produce and export a HELL of a lot of food.

I will grant that we also spend a lot building up our military, but it would be foolish to decrease military spending in this very dangerous world, and the reality is, we are probably underfunding the military compared to its needs.

Either way, if the U.S. produces a lot of "crap," so what? Free market economies guide producers to create what consumers will buy. The only alternative is state control - which failed absolutely in the Soviet Union and is unsuccessful in China that they are moving toward free markets to keep up with us.



Every time I hear the "reverse Robin Hood" metaphor, I am forced to scratch my head and wonder: the poor don't have that much, so what is there to steal?

But I digress.

To say that we stole our land from the Indians - true as it may well be - is to evade the issue. You're saying that we are CURRENTLY, THIS VERY MOMENT, stealing from the Third World; the defrauding of native Americans 150 years ago is utterly irrelevant.

How are we "constantly" stealing from the Third World now?

We're certainly not sending our military, marauder-style, to steal food from Africa. In fact, last time our military was in Africa (Somalia), it was to protect food that the industrialized world was sending to it.

The only stealing I can think of is the following case: corporations lease land from the local government for next to nothing, clear-cut the land, and leave. But why does THAT happen?

Simple: those countries have very little private property - note how the company leases the land from the government. If the bulk of the land was owned privately by native-born people, and if those private property rights were respected by the rule of law, then MOST of the problem would be solved. Third World logging would be comparable to American logging, which is MUCH better for the locals (not to mention the environment).


I reiterate: "The gulf between the United States and the Third World is NOT an unequal distribution of wealth or resources: it's an unequal distribution of economic freedom and the social structures necessary to maintain it (most notably, the rule of law)."

First, the only alternative is not state control, in the sense of communism. Another alternative would be to put restrictions on free worldwide production and selling. The U.S. had more regulations in the past, and Fordism functioned only for a certain period of time. My opinion is that economy has to be regulated.

You wonder: the poor don?t have that much so what could we steal? Turn on your head, big man. Their PRODUCTS!

Yes, these are amongst what we are constantly stealing from the third world. See the interests for debts above, just one example. Much bigger example: you can steal if you direct the price, nooooo? Never occured to you? The private wealth in third world countries also doesn?t rise because they are underpaid. Like the bananas mentioned above (or any other product they export): Apart from that WE should pay more, because then we would be more careful with food and throw less away, the main part of profits goes to the spans in between: transport, importers, and then supermarkets.

Fact is that first world has all the control. And with control, you have all the possibilities. Even to hide your stealing as normal economical procedures. But there is only one truth, and this stays the same: We are thieves, each and every day.

Oh, and the military spending is so high because we want this situation of control to STAY like it is. I?m not saying that people from third world countries would be at the same level with us, but I am saying that the Pentagon and its beloved agancys do their very best to keep the situation like it is. Political instability is not a motor to development and independency and freedom. And I don?t think the main goal of the C.I.A. is to stabilise other countries, is it?

Interesting example: one time I was watching a documentary about ex agency workers. One of them was telling a story... don?t remember which country it was, latin america somewhere...
like he was having a job as a truckdriver, a meat transport truck, right. Then, they got the order to destabilize the country, maybe because some paranoid in Langley had the idea someone social could rise. Simple thing: the agent stopped his car, didn?t transport anymore, this makes tons of bad meat stinking in the sun, which makes people nervous - as they don?t have that much there, they don?t like wasting resources - take this little example, multiply it with 10,000 and the country is destabilized.

Cool how we keep our wealth and destoy development policies, hmmm?

 

[Spiral_Staircase]

Last but not least: Those statistics are interesting, the ones about how much export volume (in dollars) the U.S. makes with arms exports, is even more interesting.

I think it's important to note that though the arms export numbers may be more interesting than the agricultural numbers, they are smaller. The United States' number one export is agricultural products, worth 50-60 billion dollars per year. According to the USDA, our trade surplus in agricultural goods is expected to top $18 billion in 2002.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Anybody else getting a headache from hiphop's posts?

Seriously, half of it doesn't make any sense, the other half is the same old liberal crap that is shoveled onto this forum on a regular basis: America bad, socialism good.

On the "America is bad" front:

We are overcharging our products. We're throwing away extra food rather than export it. We're profiting from interest rates applied to our own debts (explain THAT one). We, once again, deserved the attacks on 9/11/01: "Expect a few Bin Ladens to creep out, brothers!" We're greedily setting banana prices too low (never mind that all we're doing is simply allowing market forces to take over). The CIA is intentionally destabalizing other countries - not because their leadership is a threat to our interests, but just to make more money.

And "We are thieves, each and every day."

(I'm shocked that he didn't explicitly say that the bourgeoisie steal from the proletariat each and every day.)


And on "Socialism is good" front:

EVERY solution is more regulation.

First, the only alternative is not state control, in the sense of communism. Another alternative would be to put restrictions on free worldwide production and selling. The U.S. had more regulations in the past, and Fordism functioned only for a certain period of time. My opinion is that economy has to be regulated.

How is regulation NOT state control of the economy? Even if the means of production are technically privately owned, it doesn't much matter if the government is setting prices.

 

[z edge]

No, we only know that you think photos of babies with guns are wonderful.

Being one of the NICE guys, I may ask: Did I misinterprete your post (maybe you just thought that the baby and therefore the photo is wonderful and you just didn?t see the gun)?

No I don't see any reason to arm babies with guns or suicide bombs/grenades

Thank you for asking though, you obviously couldn't smell the sarcasm in that other thread where I commented on the picture

 

[STING2]

As far as which country has the most wealth, and which country buys more products from other countries, its the American consumer. We have the money, and are dollars and buying habbits often keep the Global economy from sinking. People around the world love America for that fact, America is the largest market in the world. Guess which country U2 makes most of its money in?

By the way, the goal of the US government and military is a stable world with free trade, and the development of market based democracies throughout the third world. The reason for that is simple, wealth and business increase when there is stability and free trade. Developing market based democratic countries helps achieve this goal.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Well said, Sting.

Even if the United States' ranking were to drop through the proliferation of stable governments, the rule of law, and free trade - a definite possibility considering that some nations do have more land (Russia) or more people (China) - individual Americans (and Africans and Asians, etc.) would still be better off. They would all be able to purchase higher quality goods at lower prices.

 

[garibaldo]

Anybody else getting a headache from hiphop's posts?

No kidding! I almost vomited there. What he\she is advocating is obviously socialism. This person undoubtedly spends quite a bit of time memorizing the script written for them on the hundreds of left-wing "watch" sites all over the internet claiming to have the "truth". See Danospano's post listing America's evils for more evidence of what a left-wing script looks like. Does anyone here really believe that whenhiphopdrovethebigcars has a good background in economics or business? Educated at Harvard\UPENN\Yale\Berkeley? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds more like community college.

"fake of democracy you?re living in"

Yeah, this makes sense because WE'RE living in the "fake" democracy and YOU'RE living in the "real" democracy, right? Hahaha.....as long as you continue to benefit from this system, you're as culpable as we are for its sins. Your arguements make it sound like you are a third-person observer objectively looking at all of this without any bias. The reality is that you're feeding at the capitalist trough with the rest of us and shitting in the food. Get your head out of here and go feed at the socialist trough. Be careful though! I hear they don't mix in any sugar and honey

 

[Rono]

Anybody else getting a headache from hiphop's posts?

No, but everytime you try bellitle people with different opinions does,...

Seriously, half of it doesn't make any sense, the other half is the same old liberal crap that is shoveled onto this forum on a regular basis: America bad, socialism good.

Nice words for someone who put his believes into Bush. Bush junior has the same people working for him as his daddy. That is a fine example for progress

We are overcharging our products. We're throwing away extra food rather than export it. We're greedily setting banana prices too low (never mind that all we're doing is simply allowing market forces to take over).

Allowing markt forces to take over ? That is not posible with high import taxes ( to protect the old steel industry ) huge agriculture subsidy`s ( Europe and America ) ect. So there will never be a free market with selfprotection.

The CIA is intentionally destabalizing other countries - not because their leadership is a threat to our interests, but just to make more money.

I do not know about the CIA but still aske myself,..Why do i hear story`s about America selling wapons to the muslims in Sebrenica (there was a weaponembargo ) and selling weapons to the Albanian minority in Macedonie ? All behind the back of the Navo and UN.

 

[hiphop]

Anybody else getting a headache from hiphop's posts?

Seriously, half of it doesn't make any sense, the other half is the same old liberal crap that is shoveled onto this forum on a regular basis: America bad, socialism good.

On the "America is bad" front:

We are overcharging our products. We're throwing away extra food rather than export it. We're profiting from interest rates applied to our own debts (explain THAT one). We, once again, deserved the attacks on 9/11/01: "Expect a few Bin Ladens to creep out, brothers!" We're greedily setting banana prices too low (never mind that all we're doing is simply allowing market forces to take over). The CIA is intentionally destabalizing other countries - not because their leadership is a threat to our interests, but just to make more money.

And "We are thieves, each and every day."

(I'm shocked that he didn't explicitly say that the bourgeoisie steal from the proletariat each and every day.)


And on "Socialism is good" front:

EVERY solution is more regulation.



How is regulation NOT state control of the economy? Even if the means of production are technically privately owned, it doesn't much matter if the government is setting prices.

Oh dear, it?s amusing how you are trying to define me.
Guess you drank a little too much coffee this time; are you nervous?

I?m not in one of those categories you are thinking about, and if you want that we stay friendly and respectful with each other (meaning that we are not namecalling), change your tone, Bubba.

What you are trying, is to reduce my posts to a dualistic mash of "America is Bad" and "Socialism is good"? Ridiculous. Read some of my other posts where I stated what I like America and Americans for. I am neither a liberal nor a socialist. I?m an eclectic, this means that I integrate everything I want from various systems into my own system of thoughts or opinions.

So, hope that I stated my position a little clearer.

Now, you have accused me of saying that America deserved the attacks. Hereby I invite you to quote me, when and where did I say that? Never. I simply said that if the Pentagon finances military training in over 70 countries, so the possibility that other terrorists creep out is relatively high, I think. Nothing else.

And now, dear, I accuse you. For what you were telling me, you are either simply dumb (which I don?t think), or you are trying to manipulate my words, which I think. Shame on you.

If you tell me that?s not true, please quote me exactly, where I said that America deserved this tragedy. If you can?t, or if you don?t answer to the above and simply leave this out of your next post - like it?s your style - , it?s obvious that your accusation is wrong, and that you are intentionally lying about my words.

Apart from that, I was not speaking that the U.S. profits from the interests the U.S. has to pay for U.S. debts (again your twisted style), but profiting from the interest rates of the debts other countries have to pay to the U.S.

I also didn?t say a government should fix any prices. With regulation I mean regulation of free international trade laws, f.e.,
or the better regulation of mergers, that Clinton was ruining when he took away the anti monopolisation laws (you may note now I am far from being a liberal Clintonfan).

@ z edge: No, I couldn?t smell your sarcasm, because you were not expressing it properly in this post. To make it sarcastic, you would at least need a smiley, or another sentence. And even if the "wonderful" in your post was meant sarcastic, this kind of sarcasm is - my opinion - cruel and inappropriate in general and especially for a U2 forum. Go, spread it somewhere else, please.

@ garibaldo: Thank you for your nice words, go to vomit. Before you have the right to criticise my education, please spell out yours. What I state here are my personal opinions, that in fact I develop after gathering lots of information, but surely not from some crappy websites. I never have been to an american elite college, because I am from Europe. Having a degree in musicology and politology (or "political sciences", like we call it), I may not be a qualified partner for low level discussions with you.

By the way, the "you" and "we" difference was right. I didn?t note it that time, so I stand corrected. But if you take a quick look through my posts (if you?re not vomiting on the screen, poor boy), you will see that most of the times I include myself and my country, and never have said that any state in Europe - or so called first world - has a better third world policy than the rotten U.S. policy. In fact, if you carefully read Bubba?s wonderful critique, you will find that he quoted me saying "We are thieves, each and every day" (note the difference between you and we). And sure, I don?t exclude myself from our first world?s bad habits, - I eat the same cheap bananas like you, simply said - I don?t accuse any consumer personally, but I do accuse this economical system of being unfair, unjust, far from any moral principles, far from Christianity, and playing into the hands of criminals that are, in most of the cases, not democratically legitimated.

 

[pax]

Please level your disagreements at a person's *ideas* and not at the person him/herself.

Thank you, please drive through.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

I quote:

Who pays for the military training the Pentagon finances in over 70 (yes that is SEVENTY! Expect a few Bin Ladens to creep out, brothers!) countries in all the world? And who pays that? YOU!!!

I admit that it is an overstatement to interpret this comment as suggesting that we deserved the attacks on 9/11. But put this comment (that we should expect terrorist attacks) into the context of the REST of your posts (that "We are thieves, each and every day") and it's hard NOT to make that sort of assumption.

On the question of price controls:

What do you mean, breadbasket? It doesn?t mean that U.S. gives all this away for free, does it? Ok, great that you are a producer of so much food, but how much over-production is thrown into U.S. dustbins while others die of hunger?

Yes, these are amongst what we are constantly stealing from the third world. See the interests for debts above, just one example. Much bigger example: you can steal if you direct the price, nooooo? Never occured to you? The private wealth in third world countries also doesn?t rise because they are underpaid. Like the bananas mentioned above (or any other product they export): Apart from that WE should pay more, because then we would be more careful with food and throw less away, the main part of profits goes to the spans in between: transport, importers, and then supermarkets.

In the first paragraph you seem to think that the United States is overcharging for its food products (that we SHOULD give them away for free). In the second, you think that we steal from the Third World by "directing the price" (though I'm not sure what that means).

In both paragraphs, the problem seems to be pricing. The solution IS price fixing, either directly or indirectly.

Direct price fixing is directly setting the supermarket price. Indirect price fixing is trying to control the supply to influence the price. One example of this indirect price fixing is subsidizing farmers to destroy their own crop; that keeps the supply low, and forces the price to be artificially high.

If you don't consider the second example to be price fixing, fine. But it's still over-regulation and a very bad idea.

You say that you mean "regulation of free international trade laws, f.e., or the better regulation of mergers, that Clinton was ruining when he took away the anti monopolisation laws (you may note now I am far from being a liberal Clintonfan)."

Unless the "regulation of free trade laws" means less regulation - fewer tarrifs, fewer limits on quantities, etc. - I still think it's a bad idea. And while the government should make an effort to ensure competition by discouraging monopolies, I'm not sure that Clinton's efforts in this case were a bad thing.

(And dislike Clinton in this case doesn't prove that you're some sort of moderate. Any good liberal found plenty of opportunities to dislike his actions - from signing Republican tax cuts and budgets to signing NAFTA.)


At any rate, I believe you're taking a big risk in saying, "I?m an eclectic, this means that I integrate everything I want from various systems into my own system of thoughts or opinions."

The risk is, your system of thoughts and beliefs may not be internally cohesive; one idea may directly contradict another.

At the very least, your recent posts in this thread DO put forth liberal ideas - that America is robbing the world and government regulation is the solution.

Yes, I called "government regulation" by that hated word, "socialism." But that is what it is: socialism is marked by the government controlling the economy.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

No, but everytime you try bellitle people with different opinions does,...

Well, I certainly don't belittle EVERYONE I disagree with. It's possible that, in this case, hiphop's post are VERY difficult to interpret.

This is, I think, the worst example:

Last but not least: Those statistics are interesting, the ones about how much export volume (in dollars) the U.S. makes with arms exports, is even more interesting. You know, the fun thing about it is: who makes the money? The 30,000 people that were laid off at Boeing? The average American person? No. But who pays for supporting those exports? The ones who make the big deal? No, the taxpayer (over the Pentagon).

So, apparently, the TAXPAYER makes money from arms exports.

That makes no logical sense, and if you can explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.

Nice words for someone who put his believes into Bush. Bush junior has the same people working for him as his daddy. That is a fine example for progress

With all due respect, this has little to do with the paragraph you quoted.

Even so, if those working for the President now are the best qualified for the job (and I think many are much better than their Clinton-era counterparts), what does it matter if they worked for the elder Bush?

I'm of the opinion that change for the sake of change is NOT a good thing.

Allowing markt forces to take over ? That is not posible with high import taxes ( to protect the old steel industry ) huge agriculture subsidy`s ( Europe and America ) ect. So there will never be a free market with selfprotection.

On this point, I ABSOLUTELY agree with you. I think Bush has made a mistake with the steel tarriffs, and I think that farm subsidies hurt the consumer.

(Some liberals have actually complained about domestic farm subsidies - not because they artificially inflate the prices, but that they are high compared to African subsidies. BIG difference.)

While I agree with you here, I DON'T think this is what hiphop is talking about when he mentions regulation.

I do not know about the CIA but still aske myself,..Why do i hear story`s about America selling wapons to the muslims in Sebrenica (there was a weaponembargo ) and selling weapons to the Albanian minority in Macedonie ? All behind the back of the Navo and UN.

I don't dispute that the CIA may (MAY) be doing some shady things, and that these things may not be justified.

But that's still a FAR cry from hiphop is suggesting, namely that the CIA is doing all this to KEEP the Third World underdeveloped and less free.

 

[KingPin]

I will grant that we also spend a lot building up our military, but it would be foolish to decrease military spending in this very dangerous world, and the reality is, we are probably underfunding the military compared to its needs.

Come on, Bubba, you've got to be kidding. I'm sorry, but that statement to me is just completely ludicrous.

The US Navy has a fleet of nuclear submarines, and each of those submarines, from any place in the water, could obliterate over 50 world cities with nuclear bombs. From each submarine.

What does your military need that it doesn't have? Are you seriously worried that another country has better guns, or fighter jets, or tanks? There is no way that any other county can even compare. America waves around it's military might like it's going out of style. If there's anything your military needs, it's quality training for your troops, who are consistenly proven inferior to the British, Isrealis, Canadians, and Germans in war games.

And, frankly, I'm surprised that you would say that in a dangerous world, the solution is for a country to build more devastating weaponry. I think there should be worldwide disarmament... it's an impossible ideal, I know, but it seems like the US is either trying to take guns from someone (middle east), selling them to people for dirt cheap to achieve their own goals (afghanistan in the 70s-80s) only to try to ignore that later. It's like they want everyone else to stop making nukes... but they can keep going as much as they want.

Violence begets Violence. More military spending will NOT make a dangerous world any safer. That's like saying with all the school shootings in the US, we should start equipping students with knives or guns so they can defend themselves from other kids with weapons.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

What we are lacking is personnel and general military readiness:

The most important decision facing the United States of America is being debated in ignorance. The press has fallen down on the job. So have the pundits. The administration is afraid to speak the truth. The public doesn't want to hear the truth.

And what is the truth?

The truth is that our military isn't ready for this war. The truth is that we have too few troops. The truth is that we need either a draft, or the sort of massive expansion of our forces that will be difficult to achieve in the absence of a draft. The truth is that the public is as yet unaware of and unprepared for the military responsibilities of the new age of terror. The truth is that no one wants to talk about this. The truth is that we are fooling ourselves. The truth is that we have not yet overcome the Vietnam syndrome. The truth is that we have not yet been tested. The truth is that no one knows whether or not we shall pass the real test when it comes, as it surely will.

Read the rest of this article for the details. The author admits that he may be reading things the wrong way, but the idea that we have everything we need militarily is NOT a given.

Certainly, total military disarmament is a great idea, but I suggest nations like Iraq and North Korea put down their arms first. Until THEN, a reduction in U.S. military is a really, REALLY bad idea.

To say that increased military spending makes the world less safe is niave. It is our capacity for war that ensures peace. The world has always been - and will always be - populated by dangerous psychopaths; our capacity to kill those psychopaths gives them pause in attacking us.

And certainly, arming school children is a bad idea. But the Columbine shootings might have been less deadly had a single bus driver or a baseball coach had easy access to a firearm.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Certainly, total military disarmament is a great idea, but I suggest nations like Iraq and North Korea put down their arms first. Until THEN, a reduction in U.S. military is a really, REALLY bad idea.

Bubba, do you know why the US considers North Korea to be a threat? I've heard the Bush administration explain why they think Iraq is a threat, but nothing similar about North Korea. Just wondered if you knew anything about the issue?

 

[Achtung Bubba]

In brief, North Korea is run by an oppressive regime that sponsors a great deal of terrorism, probably already has a nuclear arsenal, and seems to be nursing the idea of invading South Korea.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

In brief, North Korea is run by an oppressive regime that sponsors a great deal of terrorism, probably already has a nuclear arsenal, and seems to be nursing the idea of invading South Korea.

Can you tell me where you get that information from, please? Thank-you

 

[hiphop]

I quote:



I admit that it is an overstatement to interpret this comment as suggesting that we deserved the attacks on 9/11. But put this comment (that we should expect terrorist attacks) into the context of the REST of your posts (that "We are thieves, each and every day") and it's hard NOT to make that sort of assumption.

On the question of price controls:





In the first paragraph you seem to think that the United States is overcharging for its food products (that we SHOULD give them away for free). In the second, you think that we steal from the Third World by "directing the price" (though I'm not sure what that means).

In both paragraphs, the problem seems to be pricing. The solution IS price fixing, either directly or indirectly.

Direct price fixing is directly setting the supermarket price. Indirect price fixing is trying to control the supply to influence the price. One example of this indirect price fixing is subsidizing farmers to destroy their own crop; that keeps the supply low, and forces the price to be artificially high.

If you don't consider the second example to be price fixing, fine. But it's still over-regulation and a very bad idea.

You say that you mean "regulation of free international trade laws, f.e., or the better regulation of mergers, that Clinton was ruining when he took away the anti monopolisation laws (you may note now I am far from being a liberal Clintonfan)."

Unless the "regulation of free trade laws" means less regulation - fewer tarrifs, fewer limits on quantities, etc. - I still think it's a bad idea. And while the government should make an effort to ensure competition by discouraging monopolies, I'm not sure that Clinton's efforts in this case were a bad thing.

(And dislike Clinton in this case doesn't prove that you're some sort of moderate. Any good liberal found plenty of opportunities to dislike his actions - from signing Republican tax cuts and budgets to signing NAFTA.)


At any rate, I believe you're taking a big risk in saying, "I?m an eclectic, this means that I integrate everything I want from various systems into my own system of thoughts or opinions."

The risk is, your system of thoughts and beliefs may not be internally cohesive; one idea may directly contradict another.

At the very least, your recent posts in this thread DO put forth liberal ideas - that America is robbing the world and government regulation is the solution.

Yes, I called "government regulation" by that hated word, "socialism." But that is what it is: socialism is marked by the government controlling the economy.

Look, Bubba , one of our (us two in discussion) main problems may be that you INTERPRETE my words into what you like to see. I?ll give you some examples:

You have admitted that I never said (and I also don?t think) that the U.S. deserved the tragedy. In my opinion, it is not hard - like you think - to make none of those assumptions. You just have to take the words like they?re written there. This is normally exactly what I mean (except if I change my opinion for your arguments, f.e., but then I also say so).

Another example is that "I seem to think the U.S. is overcharging its products". No, I don?t think so; to say the truth, I don?t know, maybe they are, but I have no real information about prices. The sentence I wrote was a reaction to your words that "The U.S. is the breadbasket of the world". Well, if I hear the word breadbasket, I think of a basket full of bread, where everyone can take out what he wants for free. So, I am not the opinion that the U.S. should give away its products for free (of what should the farmers live, excuse me?), I just think that the U.S. is just as much a breadbasket as every other country in the world that produces and exports agricultural goods.

Now, it is true that I think that the workers in the third world are underpaid for the work they do/ for the products they sell. If they were paid more, they could afford to buy more to eat, to build up infrastucture, to get better medical care. Shit, why do you think they have one hospital per sth. like 150,000 people in Africa? Because they are too stupid or undemocratic or whatever to build hospitals? No, because they don?t have the resources, financially, materially, human resources miss too, because how do you want an analphabet to get a ("classical") doctor? And it would be a healthy effect for us rich people if we paid more for goods coming from the third world: the more expensive it gets, the more worth it is to us. So we would throw away less food, and get less fat, have less heart attacks, even save money the other way ?round in the health system maybe!

I agree with you that indirect price fixing for American products is dangerous and has bad effects. So it depends on how the regulations are implemented.

I don?t agree with you that the regulation of free int. trade laws is a bad idea. If you want to know why, please try to search my posts about globalisation, as I don?t want to repeat myself endlessly. In one sentence,...

I know that "free trade zones" (what a nice word for something so bad) are giving nearly unlimited instruments of power to multinational corporations. Workers in the U.S. or in Europe are "too expensive" (well they aren?t, but the corp. wants to save money any way possible to make more profit in the end, clear). This is why production plants are put into second world or third world countries. F.e. in China there are 7 millions of people working in trade free zones. This means that the corporation doesn?t have to pay taxes when exporting from China (into the U.S. f.e., where they sell the products, mostly textile and electronic sector). It means that the corporations hire mostly women, because they are not organising as much in labour unions as men. It means that those women work for 16 hours a day, sleep in the same hall like the production machines, without fire security. It means, all in all, a new form of slavery. It is an example for one hundred percent of capitalism; in the U.S. or Europe the corporations couldn?t afford scandals like that. Nike is a famous example.

Ok, enough about free trade zones and globalisation and non - existing regulation effects. I can guarantee you that our governments (including your president, yes I know it hurts, sorry)know very well about those practices, that keep workers like in prisons, and that they support this new form of slavery. They don?t care for people dying in other countries as long as they get fed by industrial lobbies.

Next: I am not a professor of economy, but I am sure that the pro monopolisation policy (Clinton) is a bad thing, because I know some american friends who work in the music industry, and major record companies are in a deep crisis. For the employees, it is a disaster, because many of them get fired when two corp. merge. Look at the merger AOL/ Time Warner, f.e.; even for the stockholders it may be risky. Those actions are sold as unpreventable actions to the public, which is clear disinformation. Corporations could easily survive without merging. But the ultimative goal of capitalism is profit. When the Fordism - model - crisis started in the late 70s, and there was a certain level where consumers were consuming as much as they could, "capitalism" looked for other possibilities to increase profit. Sure, if I was a CEO/ top manager at a major, I would also look for other possibilities, because if I don?t increase profits for, say, 15 percent per year, its about my ass, not about the asses of my employees.

Whether I like Clinton or not is of zero importance, compared to practices like that. I only wanted to show you that I don?t see myself as a so called liberal, and I don?t always go with Chomsky or whoever. I learned to think for myself. Leave it to me to balance out the contradictions that may appear when I mix a few systems up to get to my opinion. I don?t think that?s risky, and if you see any contradiction, please tell me - I don?t think there are (m)any. I also don?t care which label I appear on, to say it with a metaphor - if you think the opinion, that mainly America and Europe are robbing the rest of the world, and this should be changed, is a liberal one, that?s ok. For me this is part of my belief system, my vision of a more balanced, fair world, part of my christianity. Jesus was the opinion that we have to share the wealth (see the bread and fish thing, one of many examples out of the bible).

Or arms producing, trafficking and financing: isn?t it written in the ten commandments that we shouldn?t kill? Didn?t Jesus say we should love our enemies? Sure, now you may say that arms are mainly used for protection (cold war example or whatever). Yes, I know, it is repeated again and again, so people believe this! When the truth is very simple: the less arms exist on this world, the less killing with help of arms there will be. I also know that for many Americans it is part of their freedom to carry a gun. If I have to live in fear that I will maybe have to defend myself, and therefore carry a weapon, this is not my definition of freedom, for my life (I am not trying to speak for you).

And last but not least, I don?t hate socialism. But I am far from being a socialist. It?s just another concept that didn?t work out in some states; on the other side, in others it did. In Europe we still have social standards (but they are melted away by our criminal politicians - no wonder in this globalisation climate).

My posts are difficult to interpret? Don?t interpret them, please; just read them. I try to express myself the clearest I can, but when I see that I am constantly misinterpretated, it is time to state that my words should be read just as they are written.

You told me of my worst example? Sorry, but I think you made a reading mistake. I said: how much export volume does the U.S. make (because officially it is the U.S., not Lockheed Martin or any other of the big five)...?.... The 30,000 people laid off at Boeing don?t make this profit. The average American person doesn?t make money (or are more than 50% of the Americans stockholders of the big five? No.) So, APPARENTLY - and EXACTLY what I said - the TAXPAYER doesn?t make money from arms exports. But who pays for supporting those exports? The Pentagon, which gives billions p.a. directly to the big five. And if I am not misinformed, the TAXPAYER (the average American) finances the Pentagon. Or was the Pentagon merged with a private corporation and I didn?t realize it? Don?t think so.
Now you explain what is so difficult to understand about that. And why it is such a bad example and so difficult to interprete.

Btw, do you know the difference between FMS and DCS? I do, because I am writing a thirty side little thesis about the American arms industry (didn?t like the EADS, so I took the American one).

Oh, and yes, the C.I.A. is doing everything to support the existing system. The problem about "capitalism" is that it doesn?t support a win-win situation. Someone has to be the loser, if profit is God. Those losers are the starving, ill, "not fit enough to survive" etc. people, and all the other living beings on Mother Earth. Some agencies? actions (and not only the C.I.A.?s, normally I dislike this example because literally everyone knows about their shady sides) are directly implemented for the unique goal to keep the third world suppressed, underdeveloped and less free. For which reasons was f.e. Allende killed in Chile in 1973? Just to be a little shady, for fun? No, to tear the country into shreds by implementing a dictatorship, planned and carried out by U.S. agencies, when Allende was dead.

Open your eyes, Bubba. Just a little. You don?t have to interprete me to understand what?s going on. This world is in a bad state. Not everything is american idealism and freedom and pancakes and democracy-loving people, and things don?t go wrong all by themselves. Not some defined states are "evil-producers" (what a ridiculous phrase, btw, but highly effective propaganda, sure, to use the word "evil"... I thought we had learned from history) neither America, nor Korea or Iraq. Saddam Hussein, yes. But that?s one out of the rich elite, in a poor country he suppresses. Like Bush is one out of the rich elite, in a rich country where people are relatively free.

You are invited to try to take a real, a deep look. If you don?t want, because it?s too painful, that?s ok by me. You are free to think what you want.

Hope to hear your opinions on this.

And it always stays
One Love

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Can you tell me where you get that information from, please? Thank-you

Certainly:

- Evidence about the nuclear weaponry, from Robert Walpole, the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic and Nuclear Programs for the CIA:

"The Intelligence Community judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons."

- About sponsoring terrorism, from a 2000 NROnline article:

"Even as the terrorists in Yemen were putting the finishing touches on their plans to take advantage of the information about the Cole's movements that the U.S. Navy was obliged to provide the Yemeni government, President Clinton was entertaining the right-hand-man of one of the world's greatest sponsors of international terrorism, North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, Marshal Jo Myong Nok.

"Jo's mission in visiting Washington was not only to secure the political legitimation for the last of the Stalinist regimes that comes from being photographed in the Oval Office in his full military regalia. (The State Department tried absurdly to construe the fact that Jo went out of his way to change into his uniform prior to his meeting with the president as symbolizing the North Korean military's commitment to peace!) His top priority was to get his country off the state sponsors of terrorism list, and thus secure access to U.S. government export credits, investment guarantees, and other financial assistance markets ? even though, like Yemen, it continues to be deeply involved in international terrorism.

"Of particular concern is the contribution Kim Jong-Il's government is making to equipping the world's rogue states (and perhaps others) with weapons of mass destruction and ever-longer-range ballistic missiles. In their hands, such weapons have the potential to do damage that will make the attack on the Cole look like a day at the beach."

In brief, North Korea is on the United States' list of state sponsors of terrorism.

- Finally, in a 2000 interview with Condoleezza Rice:

States including North Korea "are states that have been adamantly and consistently opposed to American interests, these are states that have been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, these are states that are stirring up trouble in all kinds of places of interest and importance to the United States, and they are opaque regimes that seem bent on destabilizing the international system, not acting within it."


I SERIOUSLY doubt that Bush would lump North Korea in the same category as Iraq and Iran (i.e., EVIL) if they weren't.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Hiphop:

In brief...

Well, if I hear the word breadbasket, I think of a basket full of bread, where everyone can take out what he wants for free.

You incorrectly interpreted "breadbasket" to mean "free breadbasket." What I meant with the term is that we produce and export a LOT of agricultural products, not that we give them away.

And if you look at my original use of the term, I said that the United States is "one of this planet's great breadbaskets," implying that there are indeed OTHER countries that export food.

Now, it is true that I think that the workers in the third world are underpaid for the work they do/ for the products they sell. If they were paid more, they could afford to buy more to eat, to build up infrastucture, to get better medical care. Shit, why do you think they have one hospital per sth. like 150,000 people in Africa? Because they are too stupid or undemocratic or whatever to build hospitals? No, because they don?t have the resources, financially, materially, human resources miss too, because how do you want an analphabet to get a ("classical") doctor? And it would be a healthy effect for us rich people if we paid more for goods coming from the third world: the more expensive it gets, the more worth it is to us. So we would throw away less food, and get less fat, have less heart attacks, even save money the other way ?round in the health system maybe!

Even if the people in Africa aren't against democracy and the rule of law, the thugs that RUN many African countries ARE.

Second, justifying a new regulation because it would make us less fat or cause us to be less of a burden on the health system runs completely counter to freedom: we are free to be a burden on the healthcare industry.

Third, you make two basic economic mistakes:

- If the price of, say, imported bananas were artificially raised, the demand for them would DECREASE. People would buy fewer bananas, and less money would get to the banana farmers.

- Also, price does NOT equal value. It is incorrect to assert that, "the more expensive (something) gets, the more worth it is to us." A banana is worth less than one American dollar; if it was priced to say, $5, I wouldn't suddenly believe that it was WORTH that much. I would say that it's overpriced and not buy it.

I know that "free trade zones" (what a nice word for something so bad) are giving nearly unlimited instruments of power to multinational corporations. Workers in the U.S. or in Europe are "too expensive" (well they aren?t, but the corp. wants to save money any way possible to make more profit in the end, clear). This is why production plants are put into second world or third world countries. F.e. in China there are 7 millions of people working in trade free zones. This means that the corporation doesn?t have to pay taxes when exporting from China (into the U.S. f.e., where they sell the products, mostly textile and electronic sector). It means that the corporations hire mostly women, because they are not organising as much in labour unions as men. It means that those women work for 16 hours a day, sleep in the same hall like the production machines, without fire security. It means, all in all, a new form of slavery. It is an example for one hundred percent of capitalism; in the U.S. or Europe the corporations couldn?t afford scandals like that. Nike is a famous example.

Okay, this practice IS bad, but the solution is NOT forcing industries to stay in Europe (causing even less money to find its way into the Third World). The solution is to require trading partners to have approximately equal guarantees for the conditions of their workforce. The U.S. should tell China, better conditions or no trading, either direction. And once working conditions DO improve, there should be absolute free trade: no tariffs either way, no restrictions created to keep certain industries at home.


Again, I agree that monopolies ARE bad for the consumer. THEY are bad because they limit competition and thus the natural determination of supply and price. If THEY are bad for those reasons, so are tarriffs, so is price-fixing.

Yes, Jesus said that we are to give to others, but I believe He meant that individuals are to do so - that governments are not supposed to take one person's money and give it to another. That sort of policy removes the individual's freedom to do otherwise, and it thus loses a LOT of moral value.

Yes, Jesus said that we are to love our enemies, but - again - that is meant on the personal level. If the Israel were to dispose of all its weapons, the Arab world would decimate it. Likewise, if the United States were to lower its arms, the ENTIRE world would become less safe. We would be trusting thugs and dictators to play nice, to not harm those without weapons. To do so is suicidal.

On the issue of interpreting what you say, that worst example was this:

Last but not least: Those statistics are interesting, the ones about how much export volume (in dollars) the U.S. makes with arms exports, is even more interesting. You know, the fun thing about it is: who makes the money? The 30,000 people that were laid off at Boeing? The average American person? No. But who pays for supporting those exports? The ones who make the big deal? No, the taxpayer (over the Pentagon).

It looks like you said that taxpayers profit from exporting arms - a claim that makes no sense. No offense, but it seems like English is not your first language, and that occasionally makes it difficult to understand what you mean.

If you want to differentiate between Iraq and its people - that Hussein is evil and the Iraqi citizens are not, fine. I certainly won't disagree with you, but MOST people understand that calling Iraq evil means that you think Hussein and the rest of the Iraqi LEADERSHIP is evil, not the people - a point that Bush has emphasized MANY times.

Finally, capitalism DOES support a win-win situation. In its purest form, nobody loses. Suppliers compete to produce the highest quality goods at the cheapest prices, and the individual consumer's dollar becomes more valuable. On the flip-side of that, a fluid, educated workforce (which is what countries like China lacks) would compete for jobs, with each individual making as much as his abilities and efforts allow.

 

[KingPin]

Just to address the mentioning of Jesus talking about feeding the poor and all that.

Deuteronomy is the book in the Bible where God tells the Jewish nation how to go from being a bunch of disorganized ex-slaves into a legitimate nation. They followed these rules, and before long were the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the earth. (This was around the time of David and Solomon... this has been verified historically as far as I know... Israel was a hugely wealthy state, the people were happy, and they were respected by most other nations... those that rose against them were defeated)

In this book, it says that the people who should look after the poor is neither the government, nor the church, but the businesses. Those that are making money should give some of that wealth back to the poor, and help them get back on their feet. They also had restrictions on loans... like ending debts every seven years (this is where we get the Jubilee Idea).

So technically, the people who should be giving money to the poor are folks like Bill Gates and Michael Eisner. The scary thing is that Gates is actually giving lots of cash to the poor and sick... yet nobody seems to want to join him.

 

[STING2]

Hip-hop,
You make some gross assumptions about what CIA policy around the world is trying to do. I'm sorry but its not about creating poverty. On the contrary its about supporting and defending US interest. It is the USA's interest to develop the third world economically and politically, because this creates stability, increases trade, business, and offers more markets for US goods. Of course this is a process that will take decades and decades, but its essentially the goal. Look at the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe! Look at what we did to rebuild Japan. How about taking South Korea from a poor agricultural economy in 1950 to one of big economic powers in Asia today. Taiwan, Singapore, and Maylasia are also examples. It is true that during the Cold War the CIA for National Security, would pick the lesser of two evils in various conflicts and support them, even if they were a dictator. That was the nature of the Cold War. Containment worked and the threat of Communism has ended.

By the way, Bubba has taken a deep look at these things, and your presumption that he has not because it would be painful is laughable. Perhaps it is you who should open your eyes to the information that contradicts much of what you are saying.