Poor poor USA

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

@cystic:

It’s about something much more important than simple personal possession. It’s about autonomy. …

But it only is about personal autonomy. Or better: about personal autonomy. Our societies pay no respect for other cultures autonomies, as we see them as restricting the other culture’s individuals autonomies. We don’t give a thought wether they see that autonomy (that we regard as such a high value) as autonomy at all.

This is unrelated to my point - aside from supporting it, except on a national scale. I believe that other nations should have little influence on each other outside of treaties, pacts, etc. aside from protecting smaller nations from the aggressions of larger ones. At the same time, we do have an obligation to help other nations, but this help should not be imposed upon by use of blackmail or arms.

For all you know i paid for my property WITH my thumb, my life’s work, whatever.

… your father’s work, your father’s thumb … ?

Even more to my point. If i sacrifice my life for my children, then who are you to say that it is not my children’s? The populations of North America are made up of people who left everything to come here in order to improve the lives of both themselves and their families. Why should you have any say in this, as long as i’m not having a negative influence on you (aside from making you feel sad by not gving you anything)?

…You make me look very selfish and simplistic reducing fight for personal rights to simple money hoarding. That’s really not fair.

Some use it that way, and this abuse is IMHO the thing that creates the overwhelming part of todays worlds problem. Thus, as i am part of the world, these problems are mine. Thus, it is “my business” and i have to go against it with the means that i have at hand.
I don’t think that you are among the abusers, but from my point of view you defend them and not their victims.

What abuse? The abuse of generating and keeping equity?
And the “world’s citizen” b.s. is really getting old. I lose my autonomy because some jerk who’s too lazy to do anything with his life in Newsouthbumjob Alabama is a “citizen of the world”? Fair enough - you work hard, and give away what you can to those who are poor. You gently encourage people to do the same. As for “their victims” - i am missing how not receiving money from other people makes one a “victim”. Oh dear. Bill Gates is not sharing his fortune with me. I am being victimized by him. Where i come from, people are victims of their own actions and misdeeds, of their gov’ts deeds, and of their life’s circumstances. Occassionally they are victims of the deeds of other powers - nations and men with weapons, but my working hard and giving my fortune to my children requires many assumptions and bizaarely tangental thinking to consider me abusive.
It’s funny to see someone from Germany saying this. Germany and France have both broken their contracts with the rest of the EEU by consistantly having deficits greater than 3% of their GNP. This deficit will ultimately be borne by the rest of the EEU by higher inflation rates. Do i have a right to comment on it? Maybe - but i’d direct it at the US who’s deficit is well over 500 billion now - setting Canadians up for a fall . . . .

It never was the driving force behind the economy. …

Not? What else is the main driving force then? Power can be one. But how do you accumulate power? Is there a correlation between power and wealth?

i thought i had delineated those earlier. And if you look at communist countries, power is unrelated to money, but rather directly related to who you know/sleep with/contributions to the party, etc.

The only time i really have a problem when someone “gets something for nothing” is if it comes as a result of theivery, or defrauding the gov’t.

But what is a fraud? Anything that is against the law? Anything that is against common sense? Anything that hurts more people than it benefits?

ahhh semantics . . . the last resort in a losing argument.

because you’ve robbed people of their own autonomy. Either through robbery (i’ve lost my security, as well as those items i’ve worked for), or through fraud (again - some of my equity in this country has been taken from me outside of the contract i’ve joined).

But wait…. why does setting up a sweatshop after destroying the “basis for life” before not rob the supposed workers of their autonomy?
Why is creating and then exploiting the “no security” situation of others ok on the grand scale? Why is “changing the contract” ok after “one” (you, me, a countries ethnic or social minority, pensioners, etc.) joined ?

the sweatshop is another non-sequitor - related to another argument. And i really have a problem seeing how Nike et al. destroyed the “basis for life” before these people already had.
As for “exploiting” - use whatever term you like - again we get into a debate on semantics. Using value-laden terms like this does nothing to address the argument at hand. I would use a different term myself - “benefitting” these people by providing them with means to purchase goods and services.
As far as “changing the contract” goes - unfortunately that’s a part of the contract in many respects.

[Guest]

@cystic:

I believe that other nations should have little influence on each other outside of treaties, pacts, etc. aside from protecting smaller nations from the aggressions of larger ones. …

You took societies as nations it seems. That is IMHO an out-dated view on the world. It is not so much nations that have an influence on other nations. It is more that coorporations have a large influence on nations. That holds true for rich or poor nations. I could cite the “you now are under supervision of the international financemarket” line again.
But that is going extremely OT.

…You make me look very selfish and simplistic reducing fight for personal rights to simple money hoarding. That’s really not fair.

…
I don’t think that you are among the abusers, but from my point of view you defend them and not their victims.

What abuse? The abuse of generating and keeping equity?
… Fair enough - you work hard, and give away what you can to those who are poor. You gently encourage people to do the same.

Well. Your approach is nice and rather naive. Let me ask you: Did “gently encouraging people” ever change their behavior (and this not only related to helping the poor)?
Here many of the USie conservatives seem to forced to agree with me to some degree: Gently encouraging Iraq to let the weapons inspectors do their job was not enough (and that is just one example).

As for “their victims” - i am missing how not receiving money from other people makes one a “victim”.
Oh dear. Bill Gates is not sharing his fortune with me. I am being victimized by him.

Say, you are a victim as soon as the money is stolen from you. We agree on that i guess. But (and now it’s “semantics” again) what if someone not out of your cultural group steals something that belongs to your cultural group? What if other people sell something that doesn’t belong to them but to you? There are prime examples for each of that behavior.

We (white, west-european-rooted cultures) have stolen a lot, and never cared to give it back. No, instead we claim “that now belongs rightfully to us” and claim that it would undermine our “autonomy”.

Where i come from, people are victims of their own actions and misdeeds, of their gov’ts deeds, and of their life’s circumstances.

And of the jobs that are offered. You still do not seem to see the economy plays a vital and extremely powerful role in human society.

…
Germany and France have both broken their contracts with the rest of the EEU by consistantly having deficits greater than 3% of their GNP. This deficit will ultimately be borne by the rest of the EEU by higher inflation rates. Do i have a right to comment on it? Maybe - but i’d direct it at the US who’s deficit is well over 500 billion now - setting Canadians up for a fall . . . .

Oh … isn’t that this “old world citizen talk” of you now? What the US does is none of your business, as you would say. It is a different country, and the people their voted on their government, so they are responsible. None of my business, i have my own gov’t that i have am responsible for…

(Right, i don’t agree with my own above lines, i was just trying to follow (what appears to me as) your line of thinking.
The world has grown too small for this “none of my business”. It’s “none of my business” that we pollute happily, that maybe some pacific islands business… no, i don’t eat that.

ahhh semantics . . . the last resort in a losing argument.

actually only half it was semantics. I really would have liked to get your or the dictionaries definition of it.

And i also found another nice way to “counter” that:
ahhh people who don’t want to specify and stick to wishy-washy terms …. the last resort in trying not admit a breach in the own argument ;)

the sweatshop is another non-sequitor - related to another argument. And i really have a problem seeing how Nike et al. destroyed the “basis for life” before these people already had.

Ture, it belongs to another argument, but both arguments are around the line of “is the right of personal property more important than other rights”.
And again, you don’t take the next step of thinking. Above, you had lines that “excluded” (missing a better word here, sorry) corporations from nations, now you “exclude” nations from coorporations.

Would you mind … just for the fun of it… to take them both as players on both the global and the local scale. And … in former times, it was the nations that were stronger, but now they have lost ground and are not the dominating actors anymore.
But obviously, that has nothing to do with the question of “should heritages be taxed”.

Back to that:
Could you please explain why the money of a heritage should not be taxed, where as most other income has to be taxed?
( If you say “there is no need to tax it, as it has been taxed before”: Well, everything gets taxed all the. I work, i get paid, i pay taxes on that. I go and buy something, and pay taxes on these goods. …So, when i spend money (that has been taxed) i have to pay taxes again. Why is double taxing ok here, and the principle “income has to be taxed” is not ok? )

[Janus1]

id like to take this opportunity to distance myself from any connection with falk in this thread in any way. we are now on the same side in name only

[DeviantScripter]

Fair enough. Note taken. :wink:

[cystic crypt]

i can see this getting confusing quickly . . . .

@F_alk:

@cystic:

I believe that other nations should have little influence on each other outside of treaties, pacts, etc. aside from protecting smaller nations from the aggressions of larger ones. …

You took societies as nations it seems. That is IMHO an out-dated view on the world. It is not so much nations that have an influence on other nations. It is more that coorporations have a large influence on nations. That holds true for rich or poor nations. I could cite the “you now are under supervision of the international financemarket” line again.
But that is going extremely OT.

whatever - nations, societies. You can apply what i said to either. As for corporations - their influences are either accepted or not by a society. If a society refuses to eat at macdonald’s - it perishes there. If they refuse to listen to Britany Spears - likewise. Canadians protect their “culture” to a minor extent by regulating licenses, and promoting home-grown talent.

Well. Your approach is nice and rather naive. Let me ask you: Did “gently encouraging people” ever change their behavior (and this not only related to helping the poor)?
Here many of the USie conservatives seem to forced to agree with me to some degree: Gently encouraging Iraq to let the weapons inspectors do their job was not enough (and that is just one example).

doesn’t matter. You’re altering the discussion through tangental statements.
I don’t have a problem with certain gov’t social programs.
(and yes, “gently encouraging people” changes behaviour repeatedly - a few examples - Jesus, parents, doctors, teachers, United Way campaigns etc.). Certainly its handy for the state to have organized social programs for the truly needy. Your example is unrelated, however - for too many reasons, and not germaine to the point i was making with reference to personal autonomy.

As for “their victims” - i am missing how not receiving money from other people makes one a “victim”.
Oh dear. Bill Gates is not sharing his fortune with me. I am being victimized by him.

Say, you are a victim as soon as the money is stolen from you. We agree on that i guess. But (and now it’s “semantics” again) what if someone not out of your cultural group steals something that belongs to your cultural group? What if other people sell something that doesn’t belong to them but to you? There are prime examples for each of that behavior.
We (white, west-european-rooted cultures) have stolen a lot, and never cared to give it back. No, instead we claim “that now belongs rightfully to us” and claim that it would undermine our “autonomy”.

still unrelated as to how i am being victimized by not being given money i did nothing to earn. And if this is a british stealing money away from the native thread - start a different post.

Where i come from, people are victims of their own actions and misdeeds, of their gov’ts deeds, and of their life’s circumstances.

And of the jobs that are offered. You still do not seem to see the economy plays a vital and extremely powerful role in human society.

it is a system. If we do not like the rules, we work to have them changed, we work to have them work to our benefit, or we sit back down on our ass and beg for money.
If someone offers an odious job to me, and i have ANY better alternative, i will turn it down. If my countries economy is in shambles and i have no alternative, i say “thank you for the paycheck sir” and take the job.
Oh … isn’t that this “old world citizen talk” of you now? What the US does is none of your business, as you would say. It is a different country, and the people their voted on their government, so they are responsible. None of my business, i have my own gov’t that i have am responsible for…
(Right, i don’t agree with my own above lines, i was just trying to follow (what appears to me as) your line of thinking.
The world has grown too small for this “none of my business”. It’s “none of my business” that we pollute happily, that maybe some pacific islands business… no, i don’t eat that.
whatever.
this was a discussion of why someone should have a say over my personal autonomy when you started with this “citizen of the world” b.s. I could take that to impose my will on anyone for any trumped up reason i wanted to. Yes, it is important to care about other people, but not at the risk of other people’s autonomy.

ahhh semantics . . . the last resort in a losing argument.

actually only half it was semantics. I really would have liked to get your or the dictionaries definition of it.
And i also found another nice way to “counter” that:
ahhh people who don’t want to specify and stick to wishy-washy terms …. the last resort in trying not admit a breach in the own argument ;)
i was referring to fraud in a general sense - anything involving stealing from the gov’t (tax fraud etc.) or other people/organizations/businesses through means not limited to outright theft to frank deception and duplicitiousness.

the sweatshop is another non-sequitor - related to another argument. And i really have a problem seeing how Nike et al. destroyed the “basis for life” before these people already had.

Ture, it belongs to another argument, but both arguments are around the line of “is the right of personal property more important than other rights”.
And again, you don’t take the next step of thinking. Above, you had lines that “excluded” (missing a better word here, sorry) corporations from nations, now you “exclude” nations from coorporations.

again - you keep reducing this to “property”. To fashion the “slippery slope” that you enjoy using - what comes next? Once i lose autonomy over my property, then what other freedoms are expendable? The Nazi’s demonstrated this principle all too easily vs. the Jews way back when.

Would you mind … just for the fun of it… to take them both as players on both the global and the local scale. And … in former times, it was the nations that were stronger, but now they have lost ground and are not the dominating actors anymore.

i’m a shareholder in Nike. I’ve given up 5 years of work in exchange for a piece of that company. I authorize them (as far as they can) to help me capitalize on my investment within the limits of laws and what one would consider ethical behaiviour. Obviously this becomes problematic when other people (and money) are involved. “painting a wall red goes against my ethics therefore YOU must paint that wall a different color.” (obviously a little simplistic - but here’s another) “paying workers slightly above what they might otherwise be making goes against my ethics therefore you must pay 5 times the standard wage in that country”. Did you sacrifice to invest in this company? No, of course not. But wait - you’re a citizen of the world, so you have the right to impose your values on me and everyone else . . . ahhh yes. I guess that makes you American . . . .

Could you please explain why the money of a heritage should not be taxed, where as most other income has to be taxed?
( If you say “there is no need to tax it, as it has been taxed before”: Well, everything gets taxed all the. I work, i get paid, i pay taxes on that. I go and buy something, and pay taxes on these goods. …So, when i spend money (that has been taxed) i have to pay taxes again. Why is double taxing ok here, and the principle “income has to be taxed” is not ok? )

well, i think that introducing a new tax “just because we see the opportunity” is ridiculous. And why tax it just after i died - again? What sense does that make? Why not just tax everyone across the board arbitrarily, annually, based on the root of the number of miligrams of snot that came out of my nose multiplied by my total gross possession value as determined by some bean counter?
Also, this is NOT income. It is completely unrelated to income. Also i disagree with sales taxes. It’s another “double tax” that is arbitrary and pointless and just another cash cow for gov’ts. Get rid of it, increase spending and productivity. Then people’s incomes will grow - which is being taxed anyway . . . etc.

[TG Moses VI]

Also, this is NOT income. It is completely unrelated to income. Also i disagree with sales taxes. It’s another “double tax” that is arbitrary and pointless and just another cash cow for gov’ts. Get rid of it, increase spending and productivity. Then people’s incomes will grow - which is being taxed anyway . . . etc.

I have to agree with CC on this one to a point. Like he said, a person’s fortune after death is NOT income. But as for sales tax, it’s necessary that it should be kept simple because the government needs the revenue, and that fact that it is a relatively “painless” tax.

[Guest]

@cystic:

i can see this getting confusing quickly . . . .

looks like that, my fault…. and sorry for that, i will try to keep myself under control better…

@F_alk:

You took societies as nations it seems.

whatever - nations, societies. You can apply what i said to either. As for corporations - their influences are either accepted or not by a society. If a society refuses to eat at macdonald’s - it perishes there. If they refuse to listen to Britany Spears - likewise. …

Well, i am sure you know that this untrue.

still unrelated as to how i am being victimized by not being given money i did nothing to earn. And if this is a british stealing money away from the native thread - start a different post.

I have to unravel the negations is your first sentence first….
And well, it contradicts my position.
I don’t say that you are victimized when you don’t get the money (heritage) that you did nothing to earn.

whatever.
this was a discussion of why someone should have a say over my personal autonomy when you started with this “citizen of the world” b.s. I could take that to impose my will on anyone for any trumped up reason i wanted to. Yes, it is important to care about other people, but not at the risk of other people’s autonomy.

I think i don’t understand the last line: IMO We don’t care about other people’s autonomy. We care about our own autonomy.

again - you keep reducing this to “property”. To fashion the “slippery slope” that you enjoy using - what comes next? Once i lose autonomy over my property, then what other freedoms are expendable? The Nazi’s demonstrated this principle all too easily vs. the Jews way back when.

Well, it is a bit unfair to claim i “again … keep reducing this to property” when i show one of the rare attempts to stay on topic (which was about heritage, which is handing down property in the generations). You cannot first blame me for one thing and then for exact opposite.

For the example you give: The right for property was about the last they lost. The Jews lost many freedoms first, like the freedom to leave the country, use the same busses as “aryans”, employ “aryans” etc. In the beginning it was more like the blacks were treated in the US in the 60s. Destruction of property is what happened, and later the “aryanisation” of productive means in possession by jews, their private property was left untouched for some more time. So, i don’t see it fits.

… “paying workers slightly above what they might otherwise be making goes against my ethics therefore you must pay 5 times the standard wage in that country”.

This aims at the sweatshops i assume. How much autonomy do they win by working for Nike? How much autonomy do they lose?
How much autonomy would they get if their village would work on their common grounds, grew what they needed, and we just f*ck off? Have a look at the Zapatista for an example of that, they are a great example of regaining autonomy (and a economy professor from the states who visited them said “this won’t work. It’s unefficient.” Asked what he would do “build a nice clean euphemism for sweatshop and they would profit”. … He didn’t even care about their autonomy on the sense of freedom of choice). I bet each and every worker in a sweatshop would prefer to have a small strip of land and grow him/herself what is needed for his/her own…

… And why tax it just after i died - again? What sense does that make? … Also, this is NOT income. It is completely unrelated to income. Also i disagree with sales taxes. It’s another “double tax” that is arbitrary and pointless and just another cash cow for gov’ts. Get rid of it, increase spending and productivity. Then people’s incomes will grow - which is being taxed anyway . . . etc.

You firmly believe in neo-liberalism as it seems. Let me just tell you: it is income. And for your neo-liberal chant of “everything will become better”, well, seems like the majority of the worlds population is not with you there (as they are the ones who suffer for us rich to become richer).

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

You took societies as nations it seems.

whatever - nations, societies. You can apply what i said to either. As for corporations - their influences are either accepted or not by a society. If a society refuses to eat at macdonald’s - it perishes there. If they refuse to listen to Britany Spears - likewise. …

Well, i am sure you know that this untrue.
It absolutely is true. If the Finns recognized McDonald’s to be an evil corporation serving up swill and none of them ate there, how much profit would be had? McDonald’s would lose money hand over fist, and the Koch’s would say “screw Finland”. At the same time, as Germany embraces American crap/pop culture, more money goes towards the recording/mtv/etc. industries allowing for greater ability to export crap.

whatever.
this was a discussion of why someone should have a say over my personal autonomy when you started with this “citizen of the world” b.s. I could take that to impose my will on anyone for any trumped up reason i wanted to. Yes, it is important to care about other people, but not at the risk of other people’s autonomy.

I think i don’t understand the last line: IMO We don’t care about other people’s autonomy. We care about our own autonomy.

That’s not entirely true either. There are many mechanisms in place to protect other people’s autonomy. They are called “police”, “lawyers”, “lawsuits”, “torts”, “courts”, “legislative authorities”, “human rights legislation”, etc.

again - you keep reducing this to “property”. To fashion the “slippery slope” that you enjoy using - what comes next? Once i lose autonomy over my property, then what other freedoms are expendable? The Nazi’s demonstrated this principle all too easily vs. the Jews way back when.

Well, it is a bit unfair to claim i “again … keep reducing this to property” when i show one of the rare attempts to stay on topic (which was about heritage, which is handing down property in the generations). You cannot first blame me for one thing and then for exact opposite.

For the example you give: The right for property was about the last they lost. The Jews lost many freedoms first, like the freedom to leave the country, use the same busses as “aryans”, employ “aryans” etc. In the beginning it was more like the blacks were treated in the US in the 60s. Destruction of property is what happened, and later the “aryanisation” of productive means in possession by jews, their private property was left untouched for some more time. So, i don’t see it fits.

missing the point again. go back. read the post you replied to before i wrote this earlier bit. I think that you are missing that for many of us, what we have is a part of us. Our property is something we’ve invested in and should be ours to do what we want with - even to destroy - as long as we do not hurt others. I don’t care about some kid’s inheritance or work ethic - i care about his dad’s ability to do what he wants with his property.

… “paying workers slightly above what they might otherwise be making goes against my ethics therefore you must pay 5 times the standard wage in that country”.

This aims at the sweatshops i assume. How much autonomy do they win by working for Nike? How much autonomy do they lose?
How much autonomy would they get if their village would work on their common grounds, grew what they needed, and we just f*ck off? Have a look at the Zapatista for an example of that, they are a great example of regaining autonomy (and a economy professor from the states who visited them said “this won’t work. It’s unefficient.” Asked what he would do “build a nice clean euphemism for sweatshop and they would profit”. … He didn’t even care about their autonomy on the sense of freedom of choice). I bet each and every worker in a sweatshop would prefer to have a small strip of land and grow him/herself what is needed for his/her own…
right
well - that is up to each worker and their gov’t, isn’t it then. I’ll agree - America insinuates itself into places it doesn’t belong and royally screws up life for that country’s people (Chile is in my mind right now . . . ). Still - these countries should be allowed to avail themselves of the “sweatshops” if they are offered, or to tell them to go away.

… And why tax it just after i died - again? What sense does that make? … Also, this is NOT income. It is completely unrelated to income. Also i disagree with sales taxes. It’s another “double tax” that is arbitrary and pointless and just another cash cow for gov’ts. Get rid of it, increase spending and productivity. Then people’s incomes will grow - which is being taxed anyway . . . etc.

You firmly believe in neo-liberalism as it seems. Let me just tell you: it is income. And for your neo-liberal chant of “everything will become better”, well, seems like the majority of the worlds population is not with you there (as they are the ones who suffer for us rich to become richer).

Oh brother. Nice pigeon-holing job. Where to start . . . . Oh yeah. It’s all crap. Neo-liberalism? Really - i don’t get this. I missed the part where i was chanting. The fact is we keep dumping money into the system, it doesn’t work. I’ve yet to see a working example of communism (aside from Hutterite colonies and Kibbutz’. As for income - let me try this out. I’ve grown up in a house, with a certain lifestyle, my parents die leaving it to me. This is not income. No more than my genetics, my ambition (or lack), my abilities etc. This is my terrible fortune - losing my parents. This is maintanance of my lifestyle (as long as i’m not an idiot) but this is not income. I mean really - You sociallists would bleed a stone if you had an ounce less sense.

[Guest]

@cystic:

It absolutely is true. If the Finns recognized McDonald’s to be an evil corporation serving up swill and none of them ate there, how much profit would be had? …

See that your thinking is pretty much taking 1st world standards to everzwhere. Look at the basic needs first (which is water, energy, food/seeds for their farming), and at african (esp. south africa does a “good job” there) and south american countries.
How much chance does the farmer, people in townships etc etc. have to ‘buy’ ‘their’ water/seeds from a free competitor?
CC, all your examples were poised onto our way of (and riches in) living.

… I think that you are missing that for many of us, what we have is a part of us. Our property is something we’ve invested in and should be ours to do what we want with - even to destroy - as long as we do not hurt others. … i care about his dad’s ability to do what he wants with his property.

(1)And again, you implicitly say that property is always well earned and it seems like it can not achieved by un-ethical behavior. Your notion of “not hurting others” is aimed at the existing property, not at the way you achieve it….
(2)BTW, i care for people who have no (or close to no) property and just want to live with dignity.
(3) You still are hammering on the principle here, while i in the first post mentioned some “compromise”.
Do you really think that any person can earn honestly, by hard work and luck, but without any frauds, cheating others, ‘stealing’ or other un-ethical behavior, more than 100 US$ a year? … While in some other nations the mean income is about 150 US$ a year??
I don’t think so. And i want that money to go to those who deserve it more. And as i won’t be able to take it from his life hands, i will take it from his cold ones.

This aims at the sweatshops i assume….

right
well - that is up to each worker and their gov’t, isn’t it then.

It is not up to the gov’t. It is not up to the workers if you “prepare” the ground, which we have over the last 130+ years.
Which choice has the gov’t?

….Still - these countries should be allowed to avail themselves of the “sweatshops” if they are offered, or to tell them to go away.

Telling them to go away will lead to the coorp pull the nation before court for zillions of $. So, the option of telling them to “go away” does not really work anymore. You over-estimate the power of third world nations.
Remember, of the 100 “most producing” entities in the world, it’s only 49 states, and 51 coorps already. How much chance does a third world country have against a decently strong coorp?
The world has changed a lot in the last 13 years

Oh brother. Nice pigeon-holing job. Where to start . . . . Oh yeah. It’s all crap. Neo-liberalism? Really - i don’t get this. I missed the part where i was chanting. The fact is we keep dumping money into the system, it doesn’t work. I’ve yet to see a working example of communism (aside from Hutterite colonies and Kibbutz’. … I mean really - You sociallists would bleed a stone if you had an ounce less sense.

Ok, last chance to stop this name calling. Thanks.
Second: “We keep dumping money into the system”? … Well, obviously we talk about different things:
We keep f*cking over the poorer people/nations in the name of reducing world poverty … and it doesn’t help reducing that, but making (some of) us richer and richer.
The system of the trickle-down effect has failed, it’s more a flood-up effect. …still our leaders keep preaching that free-trade will make it all good.
For the examples of communism, add the Paris Commune… and then suddenly we have three working examples. And you don’t accept them, as it seems?

[cystic crypt]

@F_alk:

See that your thinking is pretty much taking 1st world standards to everzwhere. Look at the basic needs first (which is water, energy, food/seeds for their farming), and at african (esp. south africa does a “good job” there) and south american countries.
How much chance does the farmer, people in townships etc etc. have to ‘buy’ ‘their’ water/seeds from a free competitor?
CC, all your examples were poised onto our way of (and riches in) living.

i don’t even know what to do with this. you’ve lost the original thread, i think.

(1)And again, you implicitly say that property is always well earned and it seems like it can not achieved by un-ethical behavior. Your notion of “not hurting others” is aimed at the existing property, not at the way you achieve it….
(2)BTW, i care for people who have no (or close to no) property and just want to live with dignity.
(3) You still are hammering on the principle here, while i in the first post mentioned some “compromise”.
Do you really think that any person can earn honestly, by hard work and luck, but without any frauds, cheating others, ‘stealing’ or other un-ethical behavior, more than 100 US$ a year? … While in some other nations the mean income is about 150 US$ a year??
I don’t think so. And i want that money to go to those who deserve it more. And as i won’t be able to take it from his life hands, i will take it from his cold ones.

1. This goes back to another thread. I suppose ultimately all property is stolen if you go far back enough - even the stuff that we work for could all be considered stolen from some culture/civilization - alive or dead. I’ve emerged from my past (and that of my grandparents - if i hadn’t, i would be the ultimate hypocrit as they were quite wealthy and had everything including their parents stolen from them).
   2)I do too. As a Mennonite and "citizen of this planet (really what a B.S. term) i fully support NGO’s like MCC. When i made money - i gave some of it to them. I even hope to practice medicine in places of need (unless i have an opportunity to teach - in which case i’ll really be torn).
   3)Yes, i believe that. Simply because i’ve seen it sooooo many times. As for nations that have an average earning power of 150$/year - admittedly they have a lower standard of living, but here our “cost” of living is also much higher.
   As for your prying money out of someone’s cold dead hands to save the world - give me a break. I’ll tell you right now that all the money in the world will not fix the problems in the developing world. Maybe the “Iraquization” of many of these nations might be the first step to curing their problems (debride the necrosis, and the wound will heal), but money will solve nothing. All you will be doing is stealing what is not yours from someone to give it to some dictator. Well done.

Telling them to go away will lead to the coorp pull the nation before court for zillions of $. So, the option of telling them to “go away” does not really work anymore. You over-estimate the power of third world nations.
Remember, of the 100 “most producing” entities in the world, it’s only 49 states, and 51 coorps already. How much chance does a third world country have against a decently strong coorp?
The world has changed a lot in the last 13 years

very simplistic (almost as simplistic as my forgetting about the agreements made between many of these nations and corp’s, as well as American/Canadian corps in light of NAFTA).
These 51 corps are not simply a bunch of black holes where you put something in and something is magically produced. Just as i have invested in my country, so i have invested in many of these corps either through mutual funds, or other equity-held vehicals. The shareholders in all but the few “private companies” (i think Hoffman-LaRoche is one of the few very large ones of these) could well amount to several nations, as well as the workers who produce these goods, and the people who use them. Given this is it any surprise that there are laws protecting them?

We keep f*cking over the poorer people/nations in the name of reducing world poverty … and it doesn’t help reducing that, but making (some of) us richer and richer.
The system of the trickle-down effect has failed, it’s more a flood-up effect. …still our leaders keep preaching that free-trade will make it all good.
For the examples of communism, add the Paris Commune… and then suddenly we have three working examples. And you don’t accept them, as it seems?

well, i don’t see often examples of the first. I don’t even know where this came from, really. Are you talking about sweatshops, or what???
As for trickle down - economics dictates that it can work - but of course so would communism-is-a-utopia-theorists. Also there has been no “world free trade”. It wouldn’t work yet anyway. It works with limited success within NAFTA (i think both nations have benefitted from it although i am waiting for US healthcare deliverers to sue Canada for its healthcare system . . . ).
As for the communism examples - these communes tend to be quite small and limited, held together by people who buy into the “ideal”. It would not work for those forced into it who tend to feel that capitalism can work well too - if you’re willing to work within it.

[Guest]

@cystic:

i don’t even know what to do with this. you’ve lost the original thread, i think.

very broad grin …blame GI, and blame you for following GIs first deviation from the thread… ;)

1. … I suppose ultimately all property is stolen if you go far back enough - …

Well, I guess there is a difference wether (when you go back really far) the destroyed culture has been replaced by your emerging culture (as then it will have been absorbed into yours, or you could call yours a development of the other). Then i don’t think the above can be called true.

3)Yes, i believe that. Simply because i’ve seen it sooooo many times. As for nations that have an average earning power of 150$/year - admittedly they have a lower standard of living, but here our “cost” of living is also much higher.

Having seen something happening often doesn’t make it “right”. Just compare to “usual crimes”, they happen a lot, does that make them fair and just and “right”?
And the good ol’ “costs of living” argument… Well, i don’t think that you can explain …say 10 million $ a year by costs of living… otherwise about 95% of the population would be starving to death already… I admit it is lower in the poorer countries, but it is not enough to explain a ratio of 10^6 to 1 or something.

I’ll tell you right now that all the money in the world will not fix the problems in the developing world. …l you will be doing is stealing what is not yours from someone to give it to some dictator. Well done.

As if i had sai that the dictator deserves it, right?
Of course it was pretty metaphorical. (To connect to ozone thread, you as native english speaker should have seen that ;) ).
But, what if we used that money and started to repay the debts of these countries? Then they would not need such a lot of more fresh money, and thus not need to stick to the orders of the IMF and world bank, but could try to set up a working, national economy which can supply them with their basic needs and thues increase their autonomy.

well, i don’t see often examples of the first. I don’t even know where this came from, really. Are you talking about sweatshops, or what???

Just take a look at any countries income development, and a look at the international income comparisons. You will see that the gap between rich and poor is not closing, but widening, and if you look closer, you will even see that the speed of the widening increases.

As for trickle down - economics dictates that it can work - but of course so would communism-is-a-utopia-theorists.

And you didn’t even say it will work, but it can work, which is interesting as it follows a “dictate”. Dictating something can happen is just probability. It is also dictated that you can win the lotterie ;)

Also there has been no “world free trade”. It wouldn’t work yet anyway. It works with limited success within NAFTA (i think both nations have benefitted from it although i am waiting for US healthcare deliverers to sue Canada for its healthcare system . . . ).

very broad grin NAFTA…… Canada profits. USA profits… i believe you that. But, isn’t there a third “major member” of NAFTA? Has that one profited?
For the no free trade: In some parts there has been and is free trade. And you can see who profits from that and who doesn’t.

As for the communism examples - these communes tend to be quite small and limited, held together by people who buy into the “ideal”. It would not work for those forced into it who tend to feel that capitalism can work well too - if you’re willing to work within it.

I think it can, unless these capitalists are some kind of “cut throat capitalists”.
The point is just that
the economy has to work for the people.
The human being/race has to be the ultimate concern, it’s benefit the ultimate goal. If a dozen shareholder profit and the back of two dozen other human beings, then something is going wrong.
If economy does not serve the majority of mankind, then something is going into the wrong direction, and severely!

For the communes: true. Maybe we see a good model for the future civil society there, some kind of “back to the roots”.
Nations have lost their power, why should this power not be claimed by the comunes then, instead of handing it without thought to something else that is too big to influence and by definition totally undemocratic.

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

very broad grin …blame GI, and blame you for following GIs first deviation from the thread…

Uh-oh, they’re on to me… :o

[DeviantScripter]

Then they would not need such a lot of more fresh money, and thus not need to stick to the orders of the IMF and world bank, but could try to set up a working, national economy which can supply them with their basic needs and thues increase their autonomy.

Yea, but would they? Doubtful. :roll:

[Grigoriy Ivanovitch]

@Deviant:Scripter:

Then they would not need such a lot of more fresh money, and thus not need to stick to the orders of the IMF and world bank, but could try to set up a working, national economy which can supply them with their basic needs and thues increase their autonomy.

Yea, but would they? Doubtful. :roll:

I looked for the original quote here , but couldn’t find it. Anyway, I thought the IMF just prepared loans and grants for the “underdeveloped” countries, and didn’t order them to spend it in any specific way.

[Janus1]

(off topic again)

back to the whole inheritance thing (sorry, but i gotta say it)

even if you think the government shouldnt get the money when the guy dies (i understand your point on this), and even if you think its not our business what someone does with their money after they are dead (it really isnt), you still have to agree (well, IMO) that its shortsighted to think this way. true, it really isnt our business in that sense, but in a broader sense, it very much is. these people who would get a free ride from inheritance money are bad people to have in a society. you need to have rich and poor of course, but that doesnt mean the rich should be people who have never worked in their life, these kind of people contribute nothing to society. often, they are set for life, yet since they understand nothing about the value of the dollar, they blow it all and end up with nothing. no less than they deserve, but the whole thing could be avoided.

[cystic crypt]

many things can be avoided.
This is how i will make my money - be telling people how to avoid things, and fixing them/pronouncing them dead when they do not avoid these things.
As for people who inherit a ton of money, have no sense for how to deal with it, waste it away, well, there are many wastes of space out there who deal in both financial, genetic, connected, and many other types of inheritances. The world is not perfect, and this is the least of the things i believe important to correct.

[Guest]

@cystic:

The world is not perfect, and this is the least of the things i believe important to correct.

I guess that last point is where we differ massively :)