Enjoy Capitalism

RainDog

surferdude wrote:

From Abook's point of view it seems to be a collossal failure. From my point of view it awful, but until we come up with something better it's still the best option we have. But knowing it's mob mentality downside we are stupid to let government be anything but as small as possible.

If this statement is true, then I disagree with both of you. Of course, you can really only speak for yourself. But, then, I probably still disagree with Abook.

Again, a mixed approach is the best - and I think we've got a fairly decent set-up here if we could just work out where to spend the generated funds. I say healthcare, others say war. I'm right, and they're wrong - but I just can't bring myself to take away their power to vote.

Perhaps it's because I'm not always right. Provided we all continue to have a say - no matter how far out some may be - the mob mentality aspect you mention will be tempered.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Being nice, thoughtful considerate of the lives of others. Whatever word you like.

I like selfish.

Why do they need the hats?

Because they're bald and the exposure of the top of their heads to the sun leads to an increased risk of skin cancer.

He left out the more proportionate distribution if it's corrupt socialism

How so? Corrupt dictators almost always spend their money, which mean lots of other people get it.

With capitalism, I guess these policies fit the self interest mold.

Theft never fits into "the self interest mold".

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

I like selfish.

What about when your 'selfish' gets in the way of another's happiness?

farfromglorified wrote:

Because they're bald and the exposure of the top of their heads to the sun leads to an increased risk of skin cancer.

You know a lot of bald guys.

farfromglorified wrote:

How so? Corrupt dictators almost always spend their money, which mean lots of other people get it.

The citizenry didn't get a very proportionate amount, did they?

farfromglorified wrote:

Theft never fits into "the self interest mold".

Why not?

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What about when your 'selfish' gets in the way of another's happiness?

Then I undercut my own rights, my own purposes, and my own happiness. That's not very selfish.

You know a lot of bald guys.

Yeah, it's crazy. How are those hats coming? They're dropping like flies over here.

The citizenry didn't get a very proportionate amount, did they?

Of course not. But what claim did they have to it?

Why not?

To steal something is to deny the rights of property, a right the theif is likely claiming in a contradictory manner. And to "steal to own" is not a moral code that works very well in the long run.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Then I undercut my own rights, my own purposes, and my own happiness. That's not very selfish.

No, it's not.

farfromglorified wrote:

Yeah, it's crazy. How are those hats coming? They're dropping like flies over here.

I'll make the hats when you stop using the roads.

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course not. But what claim did they have to it?

They needed it.

farfromglorified wrote:

To steal something is to deny the rights of property, a right the theif is likely claiming in a contradictory manner. And to "steal to own" is not a moral code that works very well in the long run.

We've argued property before. We will never see it the same.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Yeah, it's crazy. How are those hats coming? They're dropping like flies over here.

You'll have a continuous return if you plant some trees. They produce the shade you're looking for, don't require production or wages per se, and merely require that you promise not to cut them down.

Man, I should be in government. I just provided you what you need and helped alieviate Abook's work load.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

You'll have a continuous return if you plant some trees. They produce the shade you're looking for, don't require production or wages per se, and merely require that you promise not to cut them down.

Man, I should be in government. I just provided you what you need and helped alieviate Abook's work load.

Huh? You didn't provide anything. Plant some trees or make some hats.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'll make the hats when you stop using the roads.

That sounds like an exchange. I thought you were a socialist? The idea that I should have to do something in return for my hats shows me that you're nothing but unkind and selfish.

They needed it.

I need hats.

We've argued property before. We will never see it the same.

You better start looking then -- property rights and poverty reduction go hand in hand.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Huh? You didn't provide anything. Plant some trees or make some hats.

I provided an idea. Here's a few seeds: (.) (.) (.) (.) Once they've grown, they'll provide more.

Abookamongstthemany

See, in these threads...I feel it's quite hard to be understood by people who generally think in the logic only mode. I use much more emotional intelligence and it's quite hard to go about expressing that in a logic based debate. We are just wired too differently to understand the most of the good in where the other is coming from. I don't think of you guys who disagree with me as evil or horrible people...I just take comfort in knowing that we're just different. There are those who get where I'm coming from and those that simply won't...and we all have to live together in this world.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

I provided an idea. Here's a few seeds: (.) (.) (.) (.) Once they've grown, they'll provide more.

Those aren't seeds. Those are periods. And ideas are non-rival, so you haven't actually redistributed anything here. Give me some fucking hats, damnit!!!!!

Meh...nevermind.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

I provided an idea. Here's a few seeds: (.) (.) (.) (.) Once they've grown, they'll provide more.

You just made the internet symbol for titties...though I suppose they could be used for shade, as well.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Those aren't seeds. Those are periods. And ideas are non-rival, so you haven't actually redistributed anything here. Give me some fucking hats, damnit!!!!!

Meh...nevermind.

So what if it's nonrival? I'm not asking for compensation, and you can spread it to whomever you like. And who said anything about redistribution? Having a shaved head myself, I'm just happen to be sympathetic to your friends' problem and I'm offering a solution that's only economic quality is the promise you have to make to not cut them down.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You just made the internet symbol for titties...though I suppose they could be used for shade, as well.

Damn. I should keep up with my internet lingo.

RainDog

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You just made the internet symbol for titties...though I suppose they could be used for shade, as well.

I suppose it's kind of like accidentally cursing in a foreign language.

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

I suppose it's kind of like accidentally cursing in a foreign language.

It gave me the giggles.

kenny olav

chadwick wrote:

it is disgusting what ppl want.
ppl seem to have to obtain everything.
materialistic greed.
it is on a rampage.

gotta have the latest style of brand name clothes.
gotta drive the high dollar new cars, new one each year.
motorcycles, 4 wheelers, boats, motor-homes, trucks, cars.
2 car garage over-flowing gasoline, toys a must.
gotta have the new video game thingy.
gotta get the latest biggest flatest big screen tv.
waste everything self centered ego fucks.
paris hilton, warshiping hollywood nut suckin a-holes.
high dollar materialistic eyeballs are fogging over reality like cataracts.
reality shows, movie/rock stars top-notch super-hero god/goddesses.
atheletic super-star, nascar blizzard frenzy.
build the tower of the massive money machines.
heavy equipment power struggle for human-being removal, crush em.
fuck'em.
2 for 1 sale discount unused over-sized undercut over-priced.
myspace, your-space, outter-space.
gagets, thingys.
stockmarket corruption global trading.
whos sharing?
super-size, xtra, biggy, double, triple, king-size.
nothing, zero, zip, nada.

dig it.

CaterinaA

El_Kabong wrote:

in fact, was it chile or brazil that went back to a socialist or something form of government and actually started pulling themselves out?

Hi, I have not read the entire thread, I'm on it but I wanted to clarify this statement, well at least the Chile part. However, the only socialist country with 100% central planned economy in Latin America is Cuba. Brazil is currently ruled by a social-democratic coallition.

I'll try to summarize it the best I can. Chile regained its democracy in 1989 and the first democratic government took office in 1990. The elected coallition (Concertación Democrática) is comprised by three parties: DC (Christian Democrats, ala Helmut Kohl's party) + PPD (center left) + socialist party. Public policy and economic policy in broad terms can be considered a social-democracy. That is: a strong private sector + a State devoted to provide a strong social protection system for its citizens, particularly the vulnerable groups. Chile's development strategy has been based in becoming an exports-based economy, but not just commodities, there's been a strong State policy to foster export with added value. Even though cooper exports are still the most important ones (in terms of GDP) there's a clear decreasing trend. I might add that most public services were privatized and, for the most part, they work fairly well 'cause the Government has implemented efficient regulations systems. So far the outcomes have been very positive. Chile's poverty in 1990 was approx. 38% and in 2006 it was approx. 13%. It is still high in comparison to OECD countries, but the decrease in poverty and indigency has been outstanding. Right now Chile is the Latin American country with the lowest poverty rate. Of course, there's a lot to be done still, in terms of inequality, health-care, education and reseach&development investment, but still, it's been quite the transformation...

Accurate data can be found at: http://www.eclac.cl (UN's Economic Commision for Latin America and the Caribbean)

In summary Chile is a capitalist country with a social-democratic government. So is Brazil
Sorry for the off-topic comment,

Peace,
Caterina

EDIT: to complete the post

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

See, in these threads...I feel it's quite hard to be understood by people who generally think in the logic only mode. I use much more emotional intelligence and it's quite hard to go about expressing that in a logic based debate. We are just wired too differently to understand the most of the good in where the other is coming from. I don't think of you guys who disagree with me as evil or horrible people...I just take comfort in knowing that we're just different. There are those who get where I'm coming from and those that simply won't...and we all have to live together in this world.

just please reply to my post with #10,000

CaterinaA

The picture of the two kids is very sad, that's all I see. One could make the case of the malnourishing of the African kid being caused by the fat kid, however I fail to see it, at least using economic rationale. The only scenario in which it could be a cause-effect issue is if that those two kids were the only two people integrating the economy...

About Africa, well the way I see it, the root of the problem is for the most part political. By political I mean: corruption and lack of human capital in decision-making areas. Africa receives billions of dollars via donations, and unconditioned aid from every source one can think of. There's the NGO's, private donations, the international campaigns, country donations, and plenty of the UN aid resources go to Africa. However, the issue at stake, at least that's what many evaluation and assesments report state, regarding unconditioned-aid is accountability. For the most part those resources are not being received by those who actually need it, corruption is so entangled in many African governments that makes it extremely difficult to actually benefit people.

On the other hand, there's the issue of conditioned foreign-aid, which is an EU modality, for the most part. That's where African countries have difficulties, 'cause they fail to meet all the requisites that such aid comprises.

My 2 cents
Peace
Caterina