Fuelling the insurgency

[Ace42X]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5081360.stm#map

Freemarket capitalism at work.

[Qdrop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5081360.stm#map

Freemarket capitalism at work.


First, if it's the "black market", then it's not part of the "free market", now is it?

secondly, blaiming other countries inability to regulate thier imports, on free market capitalism... is on par the most under-educated ignorant activists one's ever hear ranting outside of Starbucks.

[STANKY808]

Are you blaming Iraq for being unable to "regulate imports"?

[Qdrop]

Are you blaming Iraq for being unable to "regulate imports"?

it's certainly not the fault of free market capitalism....

ha...like socialism would just clean this right up....

[STANKY808]

it's certainly not the fault of free market capitalism....

ha...like socialism would just clean this right up....

I'm not saying one is better than the other. I do find it curious you would blame a nation that had it's infrastructure destroyed and/or dismantled by a foreign power. I happen to think ANY stable government, be they socialist or not, could make huge strides in reducing this type of thing in Iraq.

And what of the countries exporting these items? Do they bear any responsibility?

[D_Raay]

it's certainly not the fault of free market capitalism....

ha...like socialism would just clean this right up....
OOOh wait I can't answer the question so lets attack socialism, which is not even part of the discussion.

[Qdrop]

OOOh wait I can't answer the question so lets attack socialism, which is not even part of the discussion.

to blaim free market capitalism is to imply that it's antithesis (socialism) would somehow fix this problem.

D, you really are out of your element.

[Qdrop]

I'm not saying one is better than the other. I do find it curious you would blame a nation that had it's infrastructure destroyed and/or dismantled by a foreign power. I happen to think ANY stable government, be they socialist or not, could make huge strides in reducing this type of thing in Iraq.

And what of the countries exporting these items? Do they bear any responsibility?
so, if anything, the responsibility lies with the unstable Iraqi gov't, the ineffectiveness of the US occupation, etc...

but to blaim it on free market capitalism is just ignorant.

[STANKY808]

So the countries, some of which for all intents and purposes would be called "capitalist", responsible for manufacturing and exporting of the bullets don't figure into this equation? I mean the result - flooding Iraq with cheap bullets is part of it, but at least a portion of the bullets started out in capitalist countries, no?

[Qdrop]

So the countries, some of which for all intents and purposes would be called "capitalist", responsible for manufacturing and exporting of the bullets don't figure into this equation? I mean the result - flooding Iraq with cheap bullets is part of it, but at least a portion of the bullets started out in capitalist countries, no?

so do fruit, vegetables, wood, videogames, cars, knives, chairs, books, hairspray, balloons, computers, steel, coal, matches....

free market capitalism at work...

and AGAIN....these bullets are on the BLACK market (illegal), not the free market.

^very important point.

[Schmeltz]

Bottom line is that somebody is making money off this ammo; you read about or see dead Iraqis in the news every day, and the weaponry is manufactured and sold by somebody. It's pretty poor practice to blame "capitalism" as a blanket term for this (akin to blaming "Islam" for terrorism) but I don't consider it much of a stretch to blame bullet manufacturers for the deaths of people killed by bullets. They make money off people dying. Plain and simple.

You can take it even further - point the finger at the major producers. Lockheed-Martin and so on. The guys who make the planes and the cruise missiles - great big engines of death raining destruction down on innocent people. Of course one couldn't hold them directly responsible for what is done with the hardware - but the inescapable fact is that they are deliberately spreading the mechanisms of death and destruction throughout the world, and profiting handsomely from doing so. I wonder what keeps them up at night, if anything: the thought that their products are causing so much misery and strife to so many millions of people? Or the thought that people might wise up and enlighten themselves to the point where nobody will buy their products, and their profit line might crumple?

I wouldn't presume to guess. But it's too easy to say that weapons producers and arms dealers are just meeting a demand and making an honest buck, just as it's too easy to say that the "free market" (I think, from now on, the quotation marks will accompany my every use of that term) is responsible for the distribution of this weaponry. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between - but if I worked at Lockheed-Martin, I don't think I could comfortably watch the news.

[Schmeltz]

As a further point - isn't the "black market" nothing more than the perfect incarnation of the "free market"? Here you have trade in goods completely unregulated by any authority or governing entity, free even from the vagaries of currency (since commodities can be exchanged in kind rather than on the basis of money). The "black market" is just a sector of the economy from which the wealthy make little in the way of a direct cut. No wonder governments work stringently to shut it down!

[Qdrop]

As a further point - isn't the "black market" nothing more than the perfect incarnation of the "free market"? Here you have trade in goods completely unregulated by any authority or governing entity, free even from the vagaries of currency (since commodities can be exchanged in kind rather than on the basis of money). The "black market" is just a sector of the economy from which the wealthy make little in the way of a direct cut. No wonder governments work stringently to shut it down!

i suppose if you believed in absolutely NO regulation of trade...so people would be free to bring in drugs, guns, anthrax, nuclear material, young sex slaves, stolen organs (all popular black market items)...then i guess that would be you ULTIMATE free market.

but i beleive most sane/moral people would like to keep thier country free of many of those things.

and i believe it is up the country to regulate thier imports. if Iraq is having a hell of a time doing so right now, then i guess that responsibility is on the US....not on blaiming the "free market".

and hey, if the world could work with the exporters of such "diabolical" items such as bullets...that's cool.
we did it with India to curb their exporting of the key chemical for ephedra...to slow Meth production world wide.

[STANKY808]

so do fruit, vegetables, wood, videogames, cars, knives, chairs, books, hairspray, balloons, computers, steel, coal, matches....

free market capitalism at work...

and AGAIN....these bullets are on the BLACK market (illegal), not the free market.

^very important point.

Thanks for the help.

Anyhow, that's where they are now. You are not trying to tell me they stared life on the black market? Again, they were manufactured somewhere and at least a portion of them in a capitalist country. So where is the responsibility of those starting this whole process - the manufacturers?

[Qdrop]

So where is the responsibility of those starting this whole process - the manufacturers?
that's a whole debate unto itself...

like tobacco companies, gun manufacturers...

[Schmeltz]

With tobacco companies it's a little different because people ultimately choose to smoke (why anyone would is a completely different story). It might be addictive, but it can be kicked - my little old grandmother beat nicotine after five decades of pack-a-day smoking. But nobody chooses to be shot with a gun. OK, some people do, but you get my point. Similarly, nobody chooses to have their town levelled by a fighter, or to have a cruise missile land in their backyard. Frankly, I do think arms manufacturers are perfectly to blame for the destruction caused by their products, just as greedy, corrupt, arrogant, douchebag politicians are to blame for creating the conditions under which those products are used. The punchline, of course, is that the politicians and the arms manufacturers are drawn from the same pool of douchebags anyway.

[D_Raay]

to blaim free market capitalism is to imply that it's antithesis (socialism) would somehow fix this problem.

D, you really are out of your element.
Ironic coming from someone who routinely misses the true point...

[catatonic]

I hadn't noticed Qdrop missing the point often,
and even if he is missing what most of us perceive as the point,
it seems rather arrogant to say it's the true point.
Most people don't claim absolute truth. There could be something none of us thought of.

[Ace42X]

I hadn't noticed Qdrop missing the point often,

That can happen if you are easily impressed by poly-syllables and an unerring air of self-satisfaction.

[catatonic]

I did a search of the first five political threads he started.
It was not until the 5th one that he seemed to miss a point.

[Ace42X]

I did a search of the first five political threads he started.
It was not until the 5th one that he seemed to miss a point.

It is a bit hard to "miss the point" in your own thread, as by definition you create "the point." If it matters that much to you, and you do not just want to take my word for it, look for some replies. You will see he misses the point with alarming regularity. I say "misses the point." What I mean is "tries to take it of the point" because he'd much rather tell you you are wrong about a subject he is more familiar with than have to talk to you about the topic in hand.

[D_Raay]

I hadn't noticed Qdrop missing the point often,
and even if he is missing what most of us perceive as the point,
it seems rather arrogant to say it's the true point.
Most people don't claim absolute truth. There could be something none of us thought of.
Yeah you're right. I may be overstating it a bit. I don't claim absolute truth.

What Ace said is more accurate.

Besides my original point was that Q brought up socialism to counter Ace's assertion even though Ace never mentioned it.

Then he personally attacked me and acted as if he were somehow intellectually superior to me.

[catatonic]

"It is a bit hard to "miss the point" in your own thread, as by definition you create "the point." If it matters that much to you, and you do not just want to take my word for it, look for some replies. You will see he misses the point with alarming regularity."



I know that. I was trying to close discussion. But I looked at 8 search pages of replies to political threads, and still couldn't tell.
Never mind.

I say "misses the point." What I mean is "tries to take it of the point" because he'd much rather tell you you are wrong about a subject he is more familiar with than have to talk to you about the topic in hand."

I didn't notice that exceptionally much either. OK I'm done editing now

[Qdrop]

That can happen if you are easily impressed by poly-syllables and an unerring air of self-satisfaction.


It is a bit hard to "miss the point" in your own thread, as by definition you create "the point." If it matters that much to you, and you do not just want to take my word for it, look for some replies. You will see he misses the point with alarming regularity. I say "misses the point." What I mean is "tries to take it of the point" because he'd much rather tell you you are wrong about a subject he is more familiar with than have to talk to you about the topic in hand.

there isn't a word synonomous with "hypocrisy" that does those statements justice.

Ace has a rather transparent prediliction to taking his own issues, impressing them on someone else, then attacking them.
like it's some kind of catharsis....

[Qdrop]

What Ace said is more accurate.
you mean the part about "I say "misses the point." What I mean is "tries to take it of the point" because he'd much rather tell you you are wrong about a subject he is more familiar with than have to talk to you about the topic in hand."...

KIND OF LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW....mr. kettle?


Besides my original point was that Q brought up socialism to counter Ace's assertion even though Ace never mentioned it.
and again,
to blaim free market capitalism is to imply that it's antithesis (socialism) would somehow fix this problem.

it has been well established that Ace despises captitalism and touts socialism as the superiour system...thus, it was no stretch to see where Ace was aiming.

i was quite correct in my assertion.

Then he personally attacked me and acted as if he were somehow intellectually superior to me.
because i said you are out of your element?
that's because you are.
while i am, by NO means, an economics expert....you probably have the least knowledge on markets, economic systems, etc.
the statement holds true.

if you wanna be all sensitive and cry about it....

[Qdrop]

I didn't notice that exceptionally much either. OK I'm done editing now

neither did they.
it's just more baseless, partisan-like attacks, because i routinely disagree with them.
it's standard psychology.
i'm sure i'm not immune to it either.

[catatonic]

To be fair, I noticed that on the times you most clearly were changing the subject to a point you were better able to handle, or whatever it was that upset Ace, he would get in your face to correct you. That may be why his memory has so much of you doing this in it, not that I'm denying his claim about you or accepting it.

Let me be clear that although I said it was arrogant of Ace to use the phrase "true point" in this thread, I wouldn't normally accuse Ace of arrogance and I don't consider Ace's technique antisocial or disturbed or pointless. In fact, it is a strategy that has solidly worked in keeping this board on his side and so if that's what he's aiming for it is an intelligent strategy to get there.

Now to say socialism is the only antithesis of globalism is the globalist's propaganda, which will be further confused by always equating it with total central planning. (irrelevant but I think I remember Commanding Heights saying the stock market was a socialist idea)

However, this couldn't be further from the truth, which is what I want to get at in my political ideology in one sentence thread. If all these political ideologies can be summarized in one sentence, couldn't you make countable multi-sentence political ideologies? And who can discredit them all without trying a few dozen examples first?

See the wikipedia article Humanitarianism, which as an ideology summarized in one sentence is:

Find a way to free people from needing to work.

My comparison to your definition of libertarianism

Tell people to do whatever they want, just don't hurt anybody else

is that my ideology works towards letting everybody do whatever they absolutely really want (except hurt anybody else) whereas your ideology tells people they can do it when their only two real options are be a slave or starve to death.

[catatonic]

As a further point - isn't the "black market" nothing more than the perfect incarnation of the "free market"? Here you have trade in goods completely unregulated by any authority or governing entity, free even from the vagaries of currency (since commodities can be exchanged in kind rather than on the basis of money). The "black market" is just a sector of the economy from which the wealthy make little in the way of a direct cut. No wonder governments work stringently to shut it down!

Hey that's brilliant. And poly-syllabic too.

Why not just accuse poor free-market capitalists of being black-market capitalists and rich free-market capitalists of being hypocrites at the right time politically? It may even be worth a 1/5 point bounce in polls.

[Pres Zount]

hmmm..

the free market capitalists in "Eastern Europe and Russia" are making bullets to sell, and they end up in Iraq.

I suppose in a socialist economy the people would have control over who the bullets are sold to, and where they end up.

The fact that the bullets end up on the "black market" is a fault of capitalism, anyway - the drive for profit will make people sell anything to anybody. It doesn't matter if it is illegal or not; it is a capitalist mode of exchange.

I'd wager that a socialist country would still send the bullets to Iraq, however, they would just skip over the "black market".

[Qdrop]

To be fair, I noticed that on the times you most clearly were changing the subject to a point you were better able to handle, or whatever it was that upset Ace, he would get in your face to correct you. That may be why his memory has so much of you doing this in it, not that I'm denying his claim about you or accepting it. what i DO routinely do is summarize long winded debates and/or widdle them down by not responding to side topics that come up...
this is all in an effort to keep posts in debates from stretching 3 feet down the page.
Ace often gets lost in minutia...
my personal opinion is that he intentionally does so to cloud the debate and create an illusion of intellectual superiority to any onlookers.

with ace, you can begin a debate about socialism...and by page 3, be carrying that debate with 4 subtopics like vocabularly selection, spelling mistakes, proper definitions, and how he banged your mother last night.


Now to say socialism is the only antithesis of globalism is the globalist's propaganda, which will be further confused by always equating it with total central planning.
no, i stated socialism to be antithesis of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.
go back to the start of the thread.

[D_Raay]

you mean the part about "I say "misses the point." What I mean is "tries to take it of the point" because he'd much rather tell you you are wrong about a subject he is more familiar with than have to talk to you about the topic in hand."...

KIND OF LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW....mr. kettle?


and again,
to blaim free market capitalism is to imply that it's antithesis (socialism) would somehow fix this problem.

it has been well established that Ace despises captitalism and touts socialism as the superiour system...thus, it was no stretch to see where Ace was aiming.

i was quite correct in my assertion.


because i said you are out of your element?
that's because you are.
while i am, by NO means, an economics expert....you probably have the least knowledge on markets, economic systems, etc.
the statement holds true.

if you wanna be all sensitive and cry about it....

You have no idea what my knowledge of Economics is. It is a topic I normally choose to keep away from.

Why don't you turn your finger of judgement on yourself , if it is at all possible for you to do so.

[catatonic]

what i DO routinely do is summarize long winded debates and/or widdle them down by not responding to side topics that come up...
this is all in an effort to keep posts in debates from stretching 3 feet down the page.
Ace often gets lost in minutia...
my personal opinion is that he intentionally does so to cloud the debate and create an illusion of intellectual superiority to any onlookers.

with ace, you can begin a debate about socialism...and by page 3, be carrying that debate with 4 subtopics like vocabularly selection, spelling mistakes, proper definitions, and how he banged your mother last night.
lol

no, i stated socialism to be antithesis of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.
go back to the start of the thread. Is there a difference between free market capitalism and globalism?

[Qdrop]

lol

Is there a difference between free market capitalism and globalism?

globalization is free market capitalism on a global scale, between countries.
worlwide trade with few or no restrictions.
globalization is the move toward an ideal, an economy without borders.
one economy.

[catatonic]

See the wikipedia article Humanitarianism, which as an ideology summarized in one sentence is:

Find a way to free people from needing to work.



Sorry, that's the wrong wikipedia article. See Humanitarianism (economic).

[Pres Zount]

globalization is free market capitalism on a global scale, between countries.
worlwide trade with few or no restrictions.
globalization is the move toward an ideal, an economy without borders.
one economy.

No. Globalisation is a product of capitalism, but it is not limited to it.
Globalisation is the breakdown of borders, but it's not restricted to the economy.

[catatonic]

Effectively there is no difference between globalisation and free market capitalism.

Sorry, that's the wrong wikipedia article. See Humanitarianism (economic).

140+ hours per every week by Chinese at WalMart with no vacation, while eliminating electric cars and robots that can take the jobs we don't want, all because people are forced into working?

It was over 5 years ago that the first McDonald's was run by robots. It was over 5 years ago that the first Taco Bell had a touchscreen menu decider. Clearly your ideal got ripped up and all those workers live crappy lives. The only technology that they kept was a stopwatch to fire their employees if they didn't serve you in 30 seconds!

How hard would it be to implement the touchscreen menu and robots in every chain restaurant, send the profits as checks to would-be employees (the group isn't all that difficult to identify) with maybe a 5 cent per hour markdown initially for the price of robots, and bring some cheer into their miserable lives?

Face it, free market capitalism is the worst system on earth, making everyone but .1% slaves to the .1% unless they come up with something completely revolutionary to the whole world which often will be rejected anyhow since it doesn't satisfy their demands. Let me repeat myself, you have to come up with something that revolutionizes the whole world to be free!

[Qdrop]

No. Globalisation is a product of capitalism, but it is not limited to it.
Globalisation is the breakdown of borders, but it's not restricted to the economy.

the inclusion of culture into globalisation is debatable.
yes, opening a McDonalds in Bangkok does initiate a cultural exchange....but the idea that globalisation equals the "americanization of everything" is fuckin retarded and miopic.

not that you're necessarily saying that....
but still...

[Qdrop]

Effectively there is no difference between globalisation and free market capitalism.
that is incorrect.
free market capitalism is an economic system
globalisation is the effect of that system being implemented by various nations throughout the globe, and the interdependancy created by trade between those nations.



140+ hours per every week by Chinese at WalMart with no vacation, while eliminating electric cars and robots that can take the jobs we don't want, all because people are forced into working? what the fuck are you talking about?



How hard would it be to implement the touchscreen menu and robots in every chain restaurant, send the profits as checks to would-be employees (the group isn't all that difficult to identify) with maybe a 5 cent per hour markdown initially for the price of robots, and bring some cheer into their miserable lives? so give people money for not working? welfare?

take charity...and turn it into institutionalized welfare?

Face it, free market capitalism is the worst system on earth, making everyone but .1% slaves to the .1% unless they come up with something completely revolutionary to the whole world which often will be rejected anyhow since it doesn't satisfy their demands. Let me repeat myself, you have to come up with something that revolutionizes the whole world to be free!
AND SAVE THE WHALES!

[Pres Zount]

the inclusion of culture into globalisation is debatable.
yes, opening a McDonalds in Bangkok does initiate a cultural exchange....but the idea that globalisation equals the "americanization of everything" is fuckin retarded and miopic.

not that you're necessarily saying that....
but still...

I'm not saying that at all. Do you wan't to start an argument???

[Qdrop]

I'm not saying that at all. Do you wan't to start an argument???

hence reason i wrote "not that you're necessarily saying that...."

i was spinning off your comment onto another tangent.


put your E-cock away.

[Pres Zount]

"but still..."

but still what? That came across as a "but you're still wrong".

"i was spinning off your comment onto another tangent."

hence, something else to argue about.

Get it? Your response wont merrit a reply. see you later.