 |
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:23
|
|
So still very young then.
Now how old is johncmcleod? If he is older we can pretty discount all of Fez's arguments using Fez's own logic couldn't we?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
johncmcleod
|
 |
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. There is no conceivable way that a rational person could consider the hunter-gatherer societies that existed before the 'civilisation experiment', as you called it, to be a Utopia or in any way a nice place to live. Life expectancy was about the same as in the most dirt-poor Third World nations today, life was a constant struggle for survival, and, yes, people did kill each other then, too. The only reason it seems nastier now is that we have more efficient ways to do it; not a very positive development, but, IMO, rather outweighed by all the other advantages that have come from the past ten thousand years or so. |
That's the thing. Of course life back then wasn't as convenient as it is now (for the elite few in the first world). Yet the lifestyle was so much more fulfilling that it offset this. When the white men came to America, the natives did not stop their way of life and adopt the 'civilized' living. They realized the superficialness and emptiness of our way of life. There is a reason they held on to their way of life until the end. Now that they have to live like we do, most of them live in poverty and spend their money on drinking and gambling.
Now obviously I am not calling for human beings to go back to being hunter-gatherers. A society can be tribal and agricultural. They can have an easier, more convenient lifestyle but most of all a better one. I'm not necessarily advocating for everyone to be tribalistic again, either. I'm just bringing up the point that when people lived communally (that means sharing food, which Giancarlo said was evil) and tribally things were a lot better.
quote:
If there was a system that could get 2000 calories per day to everyone, that could make everyones conditions liveable, and have the ability to progress the species to a better standard of life, I'd be all for it. There isn't. Communism, done worldwide in practice, would be so woefully inefficient and burocratic that most of that food, those conditions, would be wasted. |
It sure as hell would be way better than what we have now, and it deserves a try.
quote:
The best way to help improve the third world is to allow them to sell to our markets, while not selling to theirs. Remove our agricultural subsidies, remove our tariffs on their goods. We'll export jobs, they'll export goods. Once their wages have risen to something closer to ours, production costs will be similar. That's how the world gets more equal - naturally. If you remove the artificial barriers and let it go naturally, the world will slowly equalize. Trying to make sure that all goods are divided equally, so that everyone gets enough, has two main problems. It's so hard on a logistic scale as to be impossible, it would cause massive wastage, people trying to horde it, to get better for themselves and most of it wouldn't get to the poor. Human nature is to look out for 'you and yours', not to try to make everything equal. Communism works when it's in the best interest of the individual, as in small groups, when they need to work together to survive. On a large scale, it leads to corruption, not just at a high level, but all people trying to get more for themselves. Secondly, it gives no opportunity to work hard and better yourself. Living costs improve, technology improves, all because people have an incentive to work. When you remove that incentive, the world may be equal and liveable, but it wouldn't ever get any better. |
You can improve the third world, but not everyone can be rich. The only way we can live in such a manner is because of the third world. You can't have the rich without the poor. If we start improving the third world, allowing them to become core nations instead of dependent nations, and allowing them to regulate their own economies, and allowing them to have economies that are self-sufficient and not single-product, the first world will really take a hit. And anway the nations with more resources will always be way more rich than nations like Haiti, who don't have anything to base an economy on.
And I am not communist. I am non-capitalist. There is a difference. I have just been using the term 'communism' in my arguments because that is the term Giancarlo is using. I think that in any system there has to be incentive. If you don't work, you should be punished. You also should be allowed to better yourself if you feel like it. Those who work harder would get more money that was to be spent on luxury goods. The necessities would be provided for.
There might be some inefficiencies, but large scale communism has been attempted and has worked. By the time the USSR became industrialized (the problem with the USSR is that is wasn't industrialized, it made the transition from feudalism to communism without the capitalism) and stabilized, the people didn't starve. The people in Cuba don't starve either.
You seem to talk about technology as if it benefits mankind so much. It is a common myth. Sure it may make life a little more convenient, but it really doesn't make us happier. Do you think people are much happier than they were in 1950 because they have bigger TVs? Logic tells us that if we have nicer things our life will be better. But that isn't the way things work with humans. If it was true, America would be full of happy people. No one would ever be sad, depressed, suicidal, or ever feel like life is empty, superficial, pointless, or meaningless. But this is not the case. Once you have a reasonably comfortable and decent lifestyle, you can't do much more materialistically to make life better. I know a lot of poor people who don't have a lot of technology that are way happier than the rich people. Material things don't buy happiness. We are more advanced then ever, yet we aren't getting any happier.
I will not waste any more time on Giancarlo's posts. He has the logic of a child, and I will probably get dumber by arguing with him. Somehow Allende, a democratically elected president, and Ortega, another democratic president, are thugs and murderers and General Somoza is okay. If you want, you can tell everyone that you beat me in the argument. I really don't care. I don't need to waste any more time doing this to prove to myself that I am fed up with this rotten system.
The only thing I will add is that the US supports the most brutal regime in the world, the Saudis, along with dictatorships throughout Africa and Asia, such as Morocco, Uzbekistan, Turkemistan, Pakistan, etc.
And BTW, when I called Allende a capitalist thug it was a mistype. I meant Pinochet. I don't think I'd call Allende a thug if I made this thread for him.
Also, 100-37=63, not 73. And 2004-1987=17, not 16, like you wrote when you made your first post, or 14 or 15 when you posted second.
If you don't believe my age, you can look up the records at Gonzaga Preparatory School in Spokane, Washington. I'll be in there under John McLeod and I am 17 (even if I look like a tall twelve year old).
Mozart performed around Europe when he was 5.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001
time: 15:23
|
|
quote:
That's the thing. Of course life back then wasn't as convenient as it is now (for the elite few in the first world). Yet the lifestyle was so much more fulfilling that it offset this. |
Hmmm... so being ignorant, living to half the age people can now, being subject to constant risk of death from disease, wild animals, accident, and other people, and being subject to countless diseases that can now be easily contained, is offset by life being supposedly more 'fulfilling'? No thanks. I like being able to take time off from surviving to enjoy myself.
quote:
When the white men came to America, the natives did not stop their way of life and adopt the 'civilized' living. They realized the superficialness and emptiness of our way of life. There is a reason they held on to their way of life until the end. |
Yes, they held to it because it was what they knew, and because, to be quite frank, the Europeans weren't offering them their lifestyle (which, at the time, was pretty horrible anyway). Even if they had been, it's difficult to adjust to a total change in your way of life.
Look at it this way. Imagine that, tommorrow, a fleet of alien spacecraft arrived in orbit around Earth, and offered us a new and completely alien way of life, which, while it to far better than the 'primitive' way we lived now, was also so different to ours as to be completely incomprehensible to us. Do you think we'd all leap to join them?
quote:
Now that they have to live like we do, most of them live in poverty and spend their money on drinking and gambling. |
So because they got screwed over and don't have the same lifestyle other people do, that lifestyle is a bad thing?  Curious logic you have there.
quote:
Now obviously I am not calling for human beings to go back to being hunter-gatherers. A society can be tribal and agricultural. They can have an easier, more convenient lifestyle but most of all a better one. I'm not necessarily advocating for everyone to be tribalistic again, either. I'm just bringing up the point that when people lived communally (that means sharing food, which Giancarlo said was evil) and tribally things were a lot better. |
Again, in the times you're talking about, things were ****. Oh, no doubt you could be just as happy then as you could now (as long as you weren't used to things being the way they are now), but that doesn't mean pople were better off then than now.
quote:
You seem to talk about technology as if it benefits mankind so much. It is a common myth. Sure it may make life a little more convenient, but it really doesn't make us happier. Do you think people are much happier than they were in 1950 because they have bigger TVs? Logic tells us that if we have nicer things our life will be better. But that isn't the way things work with humans. If it was true, America would be full of happy people. No one would ever be sad, depressed, suicidal, or ever feel like life is empty, superficial, pointless, or meaningless. But this is not the case. Once you have a reasonably comfortable and decent lifestyle, you can't do much more materialistically to make life better. I know a lot of poor people who don't have a lot of technology that are way happier than the rich people. Material things don't buy happiness. We are more advanced then ever, yet we aren't getting any happier. |
You want to know how technology makes our lives better? Firstly, it, as you acknowledged, makes us materially more comfortable. This may not make us happier, but it certainly gives us less reason to be unhappy.
Secondly, it allows us to live longer, safer, and healthier lives; try telling, say, a smallpox victim that people are better off without a cure to the disease (well, you can't because smallpox has been eradicated, but that's kind of the point). Again, this isn't going to make us happy on it's own, but it removes reasons to be unhappy.
Thirdly, you talk about people being "sad, depressed, suicidal" and feeingl "like life is empty, superficial, pointless, or meaningless" as though these have anything to do with technology. It can't cure them, only the people who feel like that can, but it doesn't cause them either, except in that it takes away our illusions about the world we live in. I mean, peasants in the Middle Ages believed that life had a purpose (namely, obedience to the will of God); were they better off than us? Considering the conditions they lived in, any sane person would say no.
Fourthly, just to emphasise the point: happiness is, ultimately, about the way people feel. Yes, you can be happy while being dirt poor, or unhappy while being richer than Bill Gates. However, it's equally possible for things to be the other way around, so saying that technology is worthless because it doesn't necessarily make us happy is simply stupid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
It sure as hell would be way better than what we have now, and it deserves a try. |
No it wouldn't, it would be a disaster, and would make *everyone* poor. It would be so inefficient it would negate any gains you could make. Now small scale communism, co-operatives and the like, then working together could do it better, and fairer, but that would be under a capitalist system. Co-operation is possible in capitalism, but communism on a worldwide scale would end up in everyone beign poor, through massive inefficiency.
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
You can improve the third world, but not everyone can be rich. The only way we can live in such a manner is because of the third world. You can't have the rich without the poor. If we start improving the third world, allowing them to become core nations instead of dependent nations, and allowing them to regulate their own economies, and allowing them to have economies that are self-sufficient and not single-product, the first world will really take a hit. And anway the nations with more resources will always be way more rich than nations like Haiti, who don't have anything to base an economy on. |
Two things. Firstly, yes, no-one would be rich, in that they wouldn't be massively richer compared to the 3rd world. However the 3rd world being developed would give us trading partners, and would not lead to us having a lower quality of life at all. We can have the same quality of life without a 3rd world, as exploiting the 3rd world only helps us in the short term. Thinking long term, we *want* a richer and more developed 3rd world.
Secondly, the latter is actually not true. There is a known phenomenon called the resource trap, whereby countries without natural resources of note develop faster than those with it. Generall it is believed this is because countries with resources squander money on trying to realise them, while those without use aid and other money to industrialise and develop, meaning in the long term they do better. Know one knows exactly why it happens, however it is so well documented we know that it does happen. Zambia is a prime example, having copper and other metal resources, but being poorer than many of it's neighbours that don't have such resources. If I can find it I'll put up the article I wrote on it, as development economics is one of my main academic interests.
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
And I am not communist. I am non-capitalist. There is a difference. I have just been using the term 'communism' in my arguments because that is the term Giancarlo is using. I think that in any system there has to be incentive. If you don't work, you should be punished. You also should be allowed to better yourself if you feel like it. Those who work harder would get more money that was to be spent on luxury goods. The necessities would be provided for. |
Oh I agree competely. I'm al for a government system whereby there is a minimum quality of life: There is basic healthcare, education, housing and food for everyone, and when you work, you get more, and can buy luxuries. However that won't work yet in the thrid world. Until they've developed, they don't have any decent healthcare or education. First they need, as is happening, for jobs to be going abroad, for their efficiencies with low wages to compete and beat the developed world, and then wages will rise, and they can start to provide amenities. Some economic development must happen first though, and when we remove all our unfair subsidies, they will do.
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
There might be some inefficiencies, but large scale communism has been attempted and has worked. By the time the USSR became industrialized (the problem with the USSR is that is wasn't industrialized, it made the transition from feudalism to communism without the capitalism) and stabilized, the people didn't starve. The people in Cuba don't starve either. |
But the former Eastern Bloc countries became much richer when they capitalised, especially those that did it quickly, like the Czech Republic. They have a better quality of life than they did under communism. Similarly, I would wager that Cubans would have a better quality of life as capitalists, after a short transition period. Just because they don't starve, doesn't mean it's better than the alternative.
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
You seem to talk about technology as if it benefits mankind so much. It is a common myth. Sure it may make life a little more convenient, but it really doesn't make us happier. Do you think people are much happier than they were in 1950 because they have bigger TVs? Logic tells us that if we have nicer things our life will be better. But that isn't the way things work with humans. If it was true, America would be full of happy people. No one would ever be sad, depressed, suicidal, or ever feel like life is empty, superficial, pointless, or meaningless. But this is not the case. Once you have a reasonably comfortable and decent lifestyle, you can't do much more materialistically to make life better. I know a lot of poor people who don't have a lot of technology that are way happier than the rich people. Material things don't buy happiness. We are more advanced then ever, yet we aren't getting any happier. |
Very true. As I believe I read a study on a year or two ago, once a country bcomes richer than a relatively developed nation like Portugal, it doesn't get happier the richer it gets. However, in that society, those that have less are unhappy. It's all about keeping up the Jones's, with relative wealth. Having said that, if you were to take away all the mod cons we currently enjoy, we would, as a nation, become less happy, as we are used to this. Life *is* meaningless to anyone who doesn't have a religion or somesuch to believe in, and improving things doesn't have the affect, as there is always something we don't have. However removing things would cause unhappiness. Better medicine affects many peoples lives. I know I'd be a lot unhappier if someone took away my migraine medication, and I know I'd be a lot happier if there was a cure for diabetes. It's all on a personal level, but improved technology, as opposed to improved wealth, does make people happier, if asked to choose. However because people get used to it, unless it's taken away, they don't see the improvement it's made for them. I was reading a book called Happiness Economics the other day which explained it much better than I could. Well worth a read, especially for anyone remotely utilitarian.
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
I will not waste any more time on Giancarlo's posts. He has the logic of a child, and I will probably get dumber by arguing with him. Somehow Allende, a democratically elected president, and Ortega, another democratic president, are thugs and murderers and General Somoza is okay. If you want, you can tell everyone that you beat me in the argument. I really don't care. I don't need to waste any more time doing this to prove to myself that I am fed up with this rotten system. |
The system may be rotten, but that isn't the capitalist system, or the free market one. That's the corrupted system of capitalism that is practiced by the US and the EU predominatly. Moreover, I dispute that someone being democratically elected de facto makes them better. If people had perfect knowledge of the repurcussions of someone's actions, then possibly, but they don't, and as such, someone being popular doesn't make them good at the job.
I agree with you with the distaste for US foreign policy, but don't blame capitalism for the US's actions, any more than we should blame communism for Stalin's regime.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Chilean President,
I've been surfing a little but have found no consensus - what is the common opinion in Chile and the world of the economic policies of the Chichago Boys? Overall positive, negative, or what?
Also, how did Chile stand in economic comparison with other South American countries before the coup?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chilean President™
|
 |
Viña del Mar, CHILE
Feb 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VetLegion
Chilean President,
I've been surfing a little but have found no consensus - what is the common opinion in Chile and the world of the economic policies of the Chichago Boys? Overall positive, negative, or what?
Also, how did Chile stand in economic comparison with other South American countries before the coup? |
The current opinion of the Chicago Boys policies is mostly positive in the country. Although that wasn't the same opinion people had when they just started. I must say that they did profound changes in a very short period of time and most of them created big problems in short term like high levels of unemployment. But after the economy become stabilized (sp?) those numbers and others went down (like the historical 30% poor rate that now is less than 16%). So yes, the free market reforms are considered something positive right now for most of the people. We still have problems with reducing more the poverty but having 14% less is a good step. Besides that 16% of poors right now are gaining 10 times more than the poor people in 1990, I'm not saying that it's something to be proud of but it's something that shows that the current government (and the former democratic administrations) are doing a good job... perhaps a bit slow but come on, at least everything is getting a better.
Before the coup Chile wasn't the economic star of the continent (and I can hardly think of one), but it wasn't all that bad, regarding the regional standards of those years. We do had very high levels of poverty, mostly in rural areas. The economy wasn't a third of strong of what it is today.
Since the crisis of the 30s (the Society of the Nations declared Chile the most affected country of the recession period) we faced several problems to get back on track. In the late 50s and early 60s Chile become a bit stronger with several reforms done under the Alessandri administration. Those reforms reduced the number of poverty. The reforms kept going through the Frei administration and then when Allende gain the presidencial seat most of them were stopped to iniciate social reforms.
For the record, in the begining of the Allende administration the social reforms didn't affected to much the economy and analysts saw them as a good step into a kind of 'social democrat' administration. The problem began when the government decided to expropirate industries in all over the country which scared a lot the investments and created instability. With some State control reforms some important national corporations went to bankruptcy (like Bolocco Electronics, CRAV and Motores Nacional). And if we add to that the irresponsible declarations of ultra leftwing groups that wanted more power to them and rightwing groups that wanted Allende to be overthrow we got ourself a big problem, for the first time in our history we had social fights in the streets... that's sad...
Those were stupid years... when both sides decided to stop talking and forgot that in democracy you have to negotiate and reach agreements not to impose your point of view  
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Thanks for the reply President 
My main underlaying question is whether the progress Chile has been expiriencing in the recent decades is attributable more to Pinochet's economic policies or some other relative (compared to other South American countries) strengths of Chilean society. I don't know much about Chilean history so I am not sure which would that be. Democratic tradition? Better education or legal system? Less corruption? I don't know...
You see, I am quite annoyed when some people justify Pinochet by saying he laid down a healthy foundation for country's economic growth. That is because I dislike dictators.
However if facts say that he did, I won't close my eyes on them because of ideology.
So I have more questions 
How many of the radical reforms of the Chicago Boys hold on to this day. For example, the abolition of minimum wage? Did they really privatise all public companies, including the utilities (water supply, energy)? Are trade unions and syndicates still forbidden? If it would be too long to explain you can point me to a good web site about it.
Basically I would like to find out more details about Chilean economic history in the later half of 20th century.
I've found some info, like http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/chile.htm , has a good GDP chart but it is too short of text.
By the way, the guy that ran for Christian Democrats against Allende, Tomic, was he perhaps of Croatian origin?
And about Allende:
quote:
The problem began when the government decided to expropirate industries in all over the country which scared a lot the investments and created instability. |
I read somewhere that Allende did this, but that nationalizations were also approved or supported in the parliament, which was held by the opposition?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Not only that, but Frei before him also nationalised some copper mines?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chilean President™
|
|
Viña del Mar, CHILE
Feb 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VetLegion
Thanks for the reply President |
No problem
quote:
My main underlaying question is whether the progress Chile has been expiriencing in the recent decades is attributable more to Pinochet's economic policies or some other relative (compared to other South American countries) strengths of Chilean society. I don't know much about Chilean history so I am not sure which would that be. Democratic tradition? Better education or legal system? Less corruption? I don't know...
You see, I am quite annoyed when some people justify Pinochet by saying he laid down a healthy foundation for country's economic growth. That is because I dislike dictators.
However if facts say that he did, I won't close my eyes on them because of ideology. |
Well the only positive thing that people remember from the Pinochet administration are the economic reforms, although Pinochet was recently elected in a poll the worse president in Chile's XX century (in 2nd place was Allende .. yeah people doesn't have to many good memories of those administrations, but they do remember Allende as a good and honest politician).
Anyway Pinochet's policies were only the first step. The most important ones were done under the Aylwin, Frei Jr. and Lagos administrations. All of our current free trade agreements (with the US, EU and South Korea) were done under Lagos' socialist administration.
I don't have a concrete answer for why the reforms worked in Chile and not in the other countries of America, but most analysts says that is because that the model we use have a lot of local changes, it is not a copy/paste model that other nations used from the US model. I don't know how to explain it in English but most difference are according to monetary exchanges (sp?) or something like that. I will look for it to give you a concrete answer.
We do have a longer democratic tradition than other countries of America. The coup destroyed the 163 years of democracy we had so imagine how hard was for people to accept a military regime (although I must say that the military government had a huge support at least the first couple of years).
Less corruption is in fact a important matter. The institutions are transparent and are working perfectly. We're even ranked above the US and France in transparency (TI Report). That's a plus when investors looks for new places cheaper than the US or Europe to spend money.
Regarding the legal and education system I can't talk in comparisson with other countries of the continent 'cause I have no clue about their systems. But what I can say is that for obvious reasons the legal system was very questionable during the Pinochet administration, but since the return of democracy it shows to be very transparent and works fine. We just had a big reform of the legal system that makes him even more transparent.
In education the government is doing big efforts in transforming all state owned public schools in something similar to private schools. They reached some agreements with Entel and CTC (communication companies) to give free broad band access to all schools in Chile, plus other agreements with Microsoft and HP to give computers to the poorest schools in remote places like the islands of the far south, for example. Anyway there is a lack of money to give them the very same privilege the private schools have.
quote:
How many of the radical reforms of the Chicago Boys hold on to this day. For example, the abolition of minimum wage? Did they really privatise all public companies, including the utilities (water supply, energy)? Are trade unions and syndicates still forbidden? If it would be too long to explain you can point me to a good web site about it. |
Minimum wage was never abolished IIRC... but if it was it came back long time ago. Anyway is not a big minimum wage, only 400 dollars a month, so from time to time unions protests to gain a increase.
During the Pinochet years no water supply or energy industry was privatised... they were privatized in the 90's (Frei and Lagos administration mostly). But big industries like the copper and oil are still in hands of the State and I'm pretty sure they will stay like that. Codelco (the Copper industry) give just way too many money for the national budget. With the profit the government build hospitals and new schools, plus bought us a group of nice F-16 from the US 
quote:
By the way, the guy that ran for Christian Democrats against Allende, Tomic, was he perhaps of Croatian origin? |
Yup. This is a country of Spanish, Croatian and German descendants mostly. We're a melting pot
quote:
And about Allende:
quote:
The problem began when the government decided to expropirate industries in all over the country which scared a lot the investments and created instability. |
I read somewhere that Allende did this, but that nationalizations were also approved or supported in the parliament, which was held by the opposition?
Not only that, but Frei before him also nationalised some copper mines? |
Yup. The reform to nationalise the copper industry was a program of the Frei administration and kept going through Allende's years. But I wasn't talking about this, in fact this proof to be a good choice that Frei took. I was talking about regular companies, like if in the US the government expropriate General Motors, RCA, etc... In Chile we've always been capitalists and have the so called "entrepreneur spirit", so imagine that it was hard for people to understand that companies that didn't used national resources (like the copper industry) were expropriate.
EDIT: Fixed a lot of ortographic mistakes... probably there are more.. sorry 
Last edited by Chilean President™ on 11-10-2004 at 06:50
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gerar Dean
|
 |
Acá abajo
Sep 2002
time: 01:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Communism is not freedom from want. It is want of freedom. |
Pizza is not tomatoes from want. It is want of tomatoes.
It makes no sense, like your answer. Politics, economy and philosophy are long more than "inteligent" words.
If I say Adam Smith is the creator of the Feudalism, nobody needs to be an economist, philosopher or polytical analyst to tell me I'm saying stupid words.
I don't know why everybody says stupidities about Marx, the marxism or the communism without even have read him.
You can desagree with Marx and it's good. And you can agree with Marx and it's good too. But you can't say marxism is what marxism isn't.
If you judge marxism because of Stalin, I can judge capitalism because of Pinochet (not to say Hitler because it get us to another discussion abot the sex of the angels).
Marx thinks the communist society not as a non-freedom society but as a totally freedom (but freedom with responsability) society. The theory of Marx talks about a society without antagonic classes (it is, without people who lives from the others work in simple terms). "From everybody according with his possibilities, to everybody according with his necessities". This is the concept and this is why he call it communism: becuse of the common goods, the community sense.
If you say: this is not what has happen, I agree. But the existence of the monopolies doesn't makes Adam Smith a lier.
Anyway, even when I am a member of the "Communist Party of Apolyton", it is like a joke. To be a marxist you MUST believe in the human race. Marx was a deep humanist. And I don't give a damn about the fuc*ing human race, so I can't be a marxist. But if you talk about a theme, try to talk with knowledge or close your mouth 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
quote:
Allende = Socialist Dictator thug elected by a minority of people in Chile (he wasn't elected by 50+% majority). No more then a criminal. Not that Pinochet was any better. In Latin America, I call it the dictator effect. One dictator after another.[/q
Allende was elected with majority, more than any other party....may I remind you, a candidate does not need more than half of the votes to win, that is merely a "guaranteed vote" because no other party can match up to you. If you have something like 44% of the votes like Allende did, a party could have say, 45% or more....but no other party did, thus Allende won.
However, the only thing "dictatorial" about him is the seizure of land in his land reformations, from the bourgeoisie...but maybe that was his promise in his election campaign, no?
[q]You see, I am quite annoyed when some people justify Pinochet by saying he laid down a healthy foundation for country's economic growth. |
You realise, without CIA sabotage operations, Pinochet's reforms and economic plan would have worked quite well. The CIA is now smiling, because their plan had worked: the world would never know that Chile was a successful communist country, democratic, and with a good economic foundation...this contradicted all the anti-communist ideologies in the US, and thus a great threat...guess what the CIA decided to do to stop this from ever happening...
quote:
If you don't work, you should be punished. |
Punished not by force, but by peer pressure, and the Athenian democratic style "ostracisation"....it was quite a great method.
quote:
Secondly, the latter is actually not true. There is a known phenomenon called the resource trap, whereby countries without natural resources of note develop faster than those with it. Generall it is believed this is because countries with resources squander money on trying to realise them, while those without use aid and other money to industrialise and develop, meaning in the long term they do better. Know one knows exactly why it happens, however it is so well documented we know that it does happen. Zambia is a prime example, having copper and other metal resources, but being poorer than many of it's neighbours that don't have such resources. If I can find it I'll put up the article I wrote on it, as development economics is one of my main academic interests. |
Compare Singapore.
Compare the countries in the region.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-09-2004 15:48
|