Few people? Most people in this country aren't an example of your original point.
I'm going to have to differ with you there. Many Native Americans didn't have the same concept of ownership as the colonists; but I don't believe that because of this, there was no theft.
Of course, though I don't like the "less tangible" language. Morality and dynamics are quite tangible. But, if you mean harder to discern, then yes I definitely agree.
I see. You're a veritible Mr. Spock to my Dr. McCoy there, far.
I'm going to have to differ with you there. Many Native Americans didn't have the same concept of ownership as the colonists; but I don't believe that because of this, there was no theft.
I'm not making that case at all. You should know by now that I don't really pay much heed to a social "concept of ownership", at least as as any arbiter on morality.
A lot of Native land was stolen, but a lot of it was purchased, abandoned, traded, etc. Furthermore, Natives didn't hold claim to lots of places in America. Modern revisionist history that portrays all American land as stolen from the Natives is just as stupid as past history that portrays it as largely unoccupied or full of "savages".
I see. You're a veritible Mr. Spock to my Dr. McCoy there, far.
I don't have a vulcan emoticon here....so I'll just chuckle.
Chile's economic turn-around is both a wonderful and strange story. It's sad that their successes were marred by the some very disturbing non-economic actions by Pinochet and others in power. But for those looking for an interesting study in the effects of free market policies, Chile provides a fascinating example.
Chile is another example of how New Deal economic policies have been successful. The latin american countries which have embaced right wing laissez faire have been economic failures. This has led to the current desperate push towards socialism. The Chicago Boys destroyed Chile and it wasn't until their policies were recinded that the economic turn around of Chile began.
Chile is another example of how New Deal economic policies have been successful. The latin american countries which have embaced right wing laissez faire have been economic failures. This has led to the current desperate push towards socialism. The Chicago Boys destroyed Chile and it wasn't until their policies were recinded that the economic turn around of Chile began.
The "current desperate push towards socialism" is not the fault of lassez-faire economics. If that were true, Chile would be leading the march. It is not. The current desperate push is caused by exactly that, desperation by populations who have not produced, but still want what comes from production.
In 1973, unemployment was only 4.3% time when the government employed many of Chile's citizens. Following ten years of junta rule in 1983, unemployment had risen to 22%. Real wages declined by more than 40%. In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. In 1990, in the last year of Pinochet's dictatorship, poverty doubled to 40%.[18] Between 1982 and 1983 during the worldwide economic slump, the GDP dropped 19%, largly as a result of a downturn in the copper market. In 1970, the daily diet of the poorest 40 percent of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980 this had fallen to 1,751, and by 1990 it was down to 1,629. Furthermore, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, despite the government's boast that the new economy would solve homelessness.[19] . In 1970, the richest one-fifth of the population controlled 45% of the wealth, after much of their wealth had been seized by president Montalva. In comparison the poorest one-fifth controlled 7.6%. In 1989, the richest one-fifth controlled 55% of the wealth while the poorest one-fifth controlled 4.4%[20]
The "current desperate push towards socialism" is not the fault of lassez-faire economics. If that were true, Chile would be leading the march. It is not. The current desperate push is caused by exactly that, desperation by populations who have not produced, but still want what comes from production.
Of course it is because these countries have not produced. And they have been burdened with laissez-faire policies pushed by conservatives in washington.
Chile is not leading the march because after the chicago boys destroyed the economy it was rescued by basic New Deal legislation; progressive income taxes and protection of labor by minimum wages, workers comp, unemployment, child labor and protection of unionization. Perhaps this explains the relative economic success.
Comments
I see. You're a veritible Mr. Spock to my Dr. McCoy there, far.
I'm not making that case at all. You should know by now that I don't really pay much heed to a social "concept of ownership", at least as as any arbiter on morality.
A lot of Native land was stolen, but a lot of it was purchased, abandoned, traded, etc. Furthermore, Natives didn't hold claim to lots of places in America. Modern revisionist history that portrays all American land as stolen from the Natives is just as stupid as past history that portrays it as largely unoccupied or full of "savages".
I don't have a vulcan emoticon here....so I'll just chuckle.
So a few people got roughed up at a demonstration. Welcome to Latin America!
I'm beginning to miss the good old days of unending debate with farfromglorified!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Don't make any market transactions and you won't be taxed.
Chile is another example of how New Deal economic policies have been successful. The latin american countries which have embaced right wing laissez faire have been economic failures. This has led to the current desperate push towards socialism. The Chicago Boys destroyed Chile and it wasn't until their policies were recinded that the economic turn around of Chile began.
http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2/
Hehe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast
I'll stand by the information I posted.
The "current desperate push towards socialism" is not the fault of lassez-faire economics. If that were true, Chile would be leading the march. It is not. The current desperate push is caused by exactly that, desperation by populations who have not produced, but still want what comes from production.
Here is the information you posted:
In 1973, unemployment was only 4.3% time when the government employed many of Chile's citizens. Following ten years of junta rule in 1983, unemployment had risen to 22%. Real wages declined by more than 40%. In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. In 1990, in the last year of Pinochet's dictatorship, poverty doubled to 40%.[18] Between 1982 and 1983 during the worldwide economic slump, the GDP dropped 19%, largly as a result of a downturn in the copper market. In 1970, the daily diet of the poorest 40 percent of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980 this had fallen to 1,751, and by 1990 it was down to 1,629. Furthermore, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, despite the government's boast that the new economy would solve homelessness.[19] . In 1970, the richest one-fifth of the population controlled 45% of the wealth, after much of their wealth had been seized by president Montalva. In comparison the poorest one-fifth controlled 7.6%. In 1989, the richest one-fifth controlled 55% of the wealth while the poorest one-fifth controlled 4.4%[20]
Of course it is because these countries have not produced. And they have been burdened with laissez-faire policies pushed by conservatives in washington.
Chile is not leading the march because after the chicago boys destroyed the economy it was rescued by basic New Deal legislation; progressive income taxes and protection of labor by minimum wages, workers comp, unemployment, child labor and protection of unionization. Perhaps this explains the relative economic success.