A discussion on America and Iran and the economics of the society you'd like inhabit

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

what's the difference between a one party state controlled by Religious clerics, and a two party state controlled by billionaires? They're just different kinds of dictatorship.

hmm, first time I've seen anyone postulate that a fundamentalist theocracy and a democracy are effectively the same thing.

I know I'd prefer New York to Tehran any day of the week

Akrasia

stevedublin wrote:

The latter is not as repressive.

Hmmm.

That's debatable.

In a world dominated by free markets and capitalist enterprise, there is no such thing as Human rights. Nobody is entitled to anything other than what they can acquire for themselves in the market.

Every fundamental human right is being eroded in America at the moment.

The right to a fair trial? gone, the right to education? gone (no child left behind does exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin and illiteracy amongst the lower income families is rising very fast), The right to vote, gone, The right to healthcare, gone, The right to housing long gone, the right to free speech, Only if you have the resources to defend it. The right to liberty? There are two million people in American Jails, Most of them for non violent offences, most of them from minority groups. By far the largest prison population of any country on earth.

America is a wonderful place to live if you're upper middle class or wealthier. If you don't have any money, you don't have any rights.

wes

Akrasia wrote:

Hmmm.

That's debatable.

In a world dominated by free markets and capitalist enterprise, there is no such thing as Human rights. Nobody is entitled to anything other than what they can acquire for themselves in the market.

Every fundamental human right is being eroded in America at the moment.

The right to a fair trial? gone, the right to education? gone (no child left behind does exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin and illiteracy amongst the lower income families is rising very fast), The right to vote, gone, The right to healthcare, gone, The right to housing long gone, the right to free speech, Only if you have the resources to defend it. The right to liberty? There are two million people in American Jails, Most of them for non violent offences, most of them from minority groups. By far the largest prison population of any country on earth.

America is a wonderful place to live if you're upper middle class or wealthier. If you don't have any money, you don't have any rights.

Lets not forget working 2 or 3 crappy jobs just to make ends meet. Its so sad that people have to do that in what is the richest nation on the planet.

To be fair on America, the ideal of America is great, its just that the nation hasn't very often lived up to there lofty ideals at all. Instead they have taken Capitalism to an extreme and the poor suffer greatly because of it.

You also have the same problem in Iran where the economy is in the toilet and the people have trouble making ends meet.

Oh I would live in either, I am happy where I am now. The way I see it being poor in either country isn't a whole lot different. Working 3 jobs makes it impossible to enjoy all the freedom. In the Iranian case, not having a job at all mean you don't have the cash to do much in anyways.

Now if you have money the US is great. I doubt there would be a better place in the world if you have the money for it. Oddly enough in Iran you can buy a lot of the freedoms in the West, if you have the cash as well.

Akrasia

El Stuntman wrote:

hmm, first time I've seen anyone postulate that a fundamentalist theocracy and a democracy are effectively the same thing.

I know I'd prefer New York to Tehran any day of the week

How do you know, what do you know about teheran?

New york is probably a brilliant place to live if you're wealthy enough to enjoy it, but there are millions of very poor people in that city. there are sweat shops, human trafficing, prostitution, drug addicts, homeless children. There is just as much state repression in New york of the poor black communities as there is in teheran against political enemies and those that break religious laws. American high security prisons are just as appalling places to be as prisons in Iran rape and violence are endemic in U.S. prisons, especially those that have been privatised and turned into manufacturing facilities using prison labour.)

Jimboo_Jones

El Stuntman wrote:

hmm, first time I've seen anyone postulate that a fundamentalist theocracy and a democracy are effectively the same thing.

I know I'd prefer New York to Tehran any day of the week

I think its more likely that America will bomb the crap out of Iran than visa versa as well... so just on a safty side of things I would rather live in America

But even without that I would rather live in America

amd also in the end I would rather be the oppressor than the oppressed

wes

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

amd also in the end I would rather be the oppressor than the oppressed

Now who wouldn't want that!:D

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

How do you know, what do you know about teheran?

What do you know about New York?

New york is probably a brilliant place to live if you're wealthy enough to enjoy it, but there are millions of very poor people in that city. there are sweat shops, human trafficing, prostitution, drug addicts, homeless children.

Are you sure thats not Dublin you are describing?

There is just as much state repression in New york of the poor black communities as there is in teheran against political enemies and those that break religious laws.

Bull
Ever heard of the first amendment?

American high security prisons are just as appalling places to be as prisons in Iran rape and violence are endemic in U.S. prisons, especially those that have been privatised and turned into manufacturing facilities using prison labour.)

Well I don't doubt that either place would be a good place to live if I were a criminal.

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

America is a wonderful place to live if you're upper middle class or wealthier. If you don't have any money, you don't have any rights.

no, that constitution thingy only applies for families with incomes of 100k+

do you seriously believe this?

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

What do you know about New York?

Only what I've read and seen in documentaries. But I don't think anyone can claim to really know what it's like to live "ín New York" because there are so many different kinds of experiences that people have there depending almost entirely on one's income, education, class, family circumstances and where they live.

Are you sure thats not Dublin you are describing?

It could very well be. And the same thing applies. There are very different experiences of society depending on your individual circumstances. I take offence when people say things like Ïreland is rich now"or "There's no poverty in Ireland" because the people who say that are invariably speaking out of ignorance or from a position of privilege

I point this out because there are far to many people who think 'Capitalist liberal democracy is the best way to ensure a prosperous society'when they are simply assuming that because they are doing well, that everyone else must be too (or else they're lazy or something)

Bull
Ever heard of the first amendment?

The first amendment is aspirational at the moment. Protests are barred or penned into so called 'free speech zones'behind razor wire and surrounded by police. Protestors are targetted because of their political beliefs, people are liable to be imprisoned without any charges or right to trial just on the suspicion that they might commit a crime, Journalists are imprisoned because they refuse to assist in Government surveilance of political groups... all of these things are supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

Well I don't doubt that either place would be a good place to live if I were a criminal.

In america the most common criminal offence is to be oor and Black. You will be 30 times more likely to be incarcerated than if you are white and educated,
http://www.prisonactivist.org/factsheets/racism.pdf

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

I point this out because there are far to many people who think 'Capitalist liberal democracy is the best way to ensure a prosperous society'when they are simply assuming that because they are doing well, that everyone else must be too (or else they're lazy or something)

if you have a better alternative, I'd be delighted to hear it? Or give us an example of a country that isn't a ''Capitalist liberal democracy' that is "better" than say Ireland/USA/Japan/Germany/Sweden/France/Canada etc etc etc...

no system is perfect but the one we have is better than any other; tried and tested...

Zambia

America its a bit of a no brainer for all standard white or non muslim western familys.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Only what I've read and seen in documentaries. But I don't think anyone can claim to really know what it's like to live "ín New York" because there are so many different kinds of experiences that people have there depending almost entirely on one's income, education, class, family circumstances and where they live.

Again you could apply that on a relative scale just as much to Dublin.
I've been to New York many many times,I've family there ,hard workers and probably middle class.I don't believe in huge generalisations like what you are propagating.
For sure there is poverty,for sure theres crime but it's all relative.I'd agree theres probably more black poor people than white but theres plenty of poor white people relative to population size and theres plenty of Rich black people.

It could very well be. And the same thing applies. There are very different experiences of society depending on your individual circumstances. I take offence when people say things like Ïreland is rich now"or "There's no poverty in Ireland" because the people who say that are invariably speaking out of ignorance or from a position of privilege

No they just have a different perspective on it than you.
Personally I'd like to live in a society where you can live on a wage equating to a tenner an hour and not decide it's easier to live on 7 an hour on the dole.

I point this out because there are far to many people who think 'Capitalist liberal democracy is the best way to ensure a prosperous society'when they are simply assuming that because they are doing well, that everyone else must be too (or else they're lazy or something)

Fair enough but we live in a world that tends more to extremes than to utopia.
The USSR or modern day China weren't/aren't paragons of utopia either by a long shot.

The first amendment is aspirational at the moment. Protests are barred or penned into so called 'free speech zones'behind razor wire and surrounded by police. Protestors are targetted because of their political beliefs, people are liable to be imprisoned without any charges or right to trial just on the suspicion that they might commit a crime, Journalists are imprisoned because they refuse to assist in Government surveilance of political groups... all of these things are supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

With respect,Now thats complete rubbish.
The last time I was in washington,there were loads of protesters outside the main gates of the whitehouse decrying mr Bush.
I witnessed one american having a loud debate with some high school students on the Iraq war and it wasn't very pro Bush.Would I get away with shouting down Mr Ahmajinadad outside his house? Probably not.

You shouldn't be taking everything in from indymediaesque or agendaised web sites like as if it's gospel.
Very often the picture is much wider than that.

SeanW

America without question. Sure Bush and his neocon cronies have been trying to turn the place into a dictatorship, but in Iran the job is already done.

In another thread Sand pointed out that a (16 year old?) girl was recently stoned to death for fornication ...

When they start doing than in Washington DC then you can compare life in Iran to life in the U.S.

El Stuntman

I suppose the equivalent thing here would be for the State to be indivisible from the Catholic Church and for the Ten Commandments to be rigidly enforced on everyone, punishable by medieval forms of torture and death.

not a pleasant prospect!

Fratton Fred

El Stuntman wrote:

I suppose the equivalent thing here would be for the State to be indivisible from the Catholic Church and for the Ten Commandments to be rigidly enforced on everyone, punishable by medieval forms of torture and death.

not a pleasant prospect!

you mean like abortions to be made illegal, selling booze on good friday banned, that sort of thing. perish the thought;)

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

New york is probably a brilliant place to live if you're wealthy enough to enjoy it, but there are millions of very poor people in that city. there are sweat shops, human trafficing, prostitution, drug addicts, homeless children. There is just as much state repression in New york of the poor black communities as there is in teheran against political enemies and those that break religious laws. American high security prisons are just as appalling places to be as prisons in Iran rape and violence are endemic in U.S. prisons, especially those that have been privatised and turned into manufacturing facilities using prison labour.)

In a city with the population three times the size of that of the entire country of Ireland, it is probably no surprise that there are poor people, sweat shops, prostitution, etc.

Note, however, that a black kid from Harlem, brought up in the South Bronx, managed to become one of the most powerful people in the US. The opportunity is there, even for the most down-trodden.

NTM

brianthebard

Zambia232 wrote:

America its a bit of a no brainer for all standard white or non muslim western familys.

Agree. The whole premise of this thread is quite silly you are trying to compare completely different cultures as if they were only seperated by geography. comparing two western countries, or two middle east countries, makes far more sense than what you are doing OP.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

Agree. The whole premise of this thread is quite silly you are trying to compare completely different cultures as if they were only seperated by geography. comparing two western countries, or two middle east countries, makes far more sense than what you are doing OP.

I think it's based on the pretext that if you hate the US you must love Iran, as their perceived enemy.

you are correct, this is a wild guess, but the number of Iranians trying to get visas for the US compared to the number of Americans trying to get visas for Iran would probably give us aclue as to which is the better place to live.

bonkey

Manic Moran wrote:

Note, however, that a black kid from Harlem, brought up in the South Bronx, managed to become one of the most powerful people in the US. The opportunity is there, even for the most down-trodden.

Whereas in Iran, the son of a blacksmith became President.

(edit to add)
Don't get me wrong...I'm not suggesting that Iran is as great a place to live as they come, nor even that its comparable to the US. I'm merely pointing out that simple "look - we can find an exceptional case of success" examples don't make things black-and-white.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote:

I think it's based on the pretext that if you hate the US you must love Iran, as their perceived enemy.

Exactly, its a loaded question. If you would like to live in the US then you hate Iran by default and if you want to live in Iran then you are some sort of defector. Why can't I just want to live in Ireland??

Time Magazine

Akrasia wrote:

In a world dominated by free markets and capitalist enterprise, there is no such thing as Human rights.

Lol.

Unpossible

El Stuntman wrote:

if you have a better alternative, I'd be delighted to hear it? Or give us an example of a country that isn't a ''Capitalist liberal democracy' that is "better" than say Ireland/USA/Japan/Germany/Sweden/France/Canada etc etc etc...

I don't think you can lump all of those countries together, some of those places have a nice blend of socialisim and capitalisim (like Sweden, finland and from what Ive been told France, although with the current government Ireland seems to be moving away from that).

For the original question I think it depends on where in America we are talking about. For an atheist like myself living in the bible-belt would be hell but I wouldn't mind living in Boston.

Hobbes

Tristrame wrote:

The last time I was in washington,there were loads of protesters outside the main gates of the whitehouse decrying mr Bush.

It's still a free speech zone. When you see Bush facing public who disagree with him let us know about that. Compare that to Blair who actually has the balls to go onto a show and be roasted for his actions.

As to which to choose? The OP quote is right, there is very little difference. I mean we have a recent post of the USA torturing women and children and no one bats an eyelid. Even US media tries to glorify/justify it.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

It's still a free speech zone. When you see Bush facing public who disagree with him let us know about that. Compare that to Blair who actually has the balls to go onto a show and be roasted for his actions.

Bush isn't America.Fair enough he's got the top job there but with any luck a democrat could have that and possibly a black muslim...

As to which to choose? The OP quote is right, there is very little difference. I mean we have a recent post of the USA torturing women and children and no one bats an eyelid. Even US media tries to glorify/justify it.

Theres little difference alright when we cherry pick what we consider gross wrongs.
I'd imagine though in terms of day to day freedoms,theres a huge difference between living in the states and living in Iran.

Akrasia

Ibid wrote:

Lol.

well here's what Chomsky has to say

I mean the European system developed out of its complex historical background. I’m sure you know the original welfare states were basically Germany in the Bismarckian period – not because Bismarck was a big radical. And in fact to an extent, the European systems reflect the fact that they grew out of a feudal system. A feudal system is non-capitalist. In a feudal system everyone has a place – maybe a rotten place, but some place. So the serf has some place in the feudal system, they have some rights within that place in the system.



In a capitalist system, you don’t have any rights. And in fact when modern capitalism developed in the early 19th century – this is post-Adam Smith or anything like that, but Ricardo and Malthus and so on – their principle was pretty simple: you don’t have any rights. The only rights a person has are what they can gain in the labor market. And beyond that, you’ve no right to live, you’ve no right to survive. If you can’t make out on the labor market, go somewhere else. And in fact they could go somewhere else, they could come here and exterminate the population and settle here. But in Europe, you couldn’t do that, so some remnants of the whole feudal system and conservative structures and so on did lead to – after all, Europe had huge labor movements, the German social democratic party grew out of very powerful movements, and they just forced the development of what became social market systems.

Europe still has some remainents of socialism (hard won over generations of social and labour rights activists) but these are under constant threat from the right wing free market capitalists wherever they have power.

In America the Labour movement has been crushed, Social programs are barely existent and Corporations are left to their own devices. Today Wal-mart were accused of operating secret spying programs against political groups and employees. This included infiltrating an activist group and recording their conversations in a surveillance truck parked outside, and Hacking into the personal e-mail accounts of private citizens.

The Government has been tapping people's phones and spying on their electronic communication for years now and targeting individuals based purely on their political beliefs.

Akrasia

brianthebard wrote:

Exactly, its a loaded question. If you would like to live in the US then you hate Iran by default and if you want to live in Iran then you are some sort of defector. Why can't I just want to live in Ireland??

I didn't choose the thread title, A moderator did.

Personally i think it's a silly question and it misses the point i was trying to make. It's not about where we on this western message board would choose to live, it's about the assumption that one place is inherently better than somewhere else and we should force the others to be more like us.

Hobbes

Tristrame wrote:

Bush isn't America.

He is voted in. He and the administration he sets up speak for America.

And having the freedom to choose between only two people to vote for is not freedom.

Theres little difference alright when we cherry pick what we consider gross wrongs.

So what? We compare which is the best place by which one does the least wrongs? They are both as bad as each other.

I'd imagine though in terms of day to day freedoms,theres a huge difference between living in the states and living in Iran.

Like America it depends very much who you are and your rank in society.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Again you could apply that on a relative scale just as much to Dublin.
I've been to New York many many times,I've family there ,hard workers and probably middle class.I don't believe in huge generalisations like what you are propagating.

The only 'generalisation' I was propagating was the fact that different people have very different life experiences even if they sgare the same city or country.

For sure there is poverty,for sure theres crime but it's all relative.I'd agree theres probably more black poor people than white but theres plenty of poor white people relative to population size and theres plenty of Rich black people.

relative to population size? the statistics for poverty lack of education, unemployment adn incarceration as a proportion of the overall population for minorities are heavily skewed. Black people are many times more likely to be poor and go to jail than white people. Black people are only 12% of the U.S. population but make up 46% of the prison population. This is not because they commit more crimes, it's because they are targeted by the police and shown no mercy in the court systems.

No they just have a different perspective on it than you.

It's because they either don't notice the inequality, or they don't care about it. Either way, that doesn't make the Inequality and disadvantage disappear. The most simple example is the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population live in capitalist countries, the vast majority are very poor and getting poorer, but most people in Ireland still think that capitalism is the only way to lift people out of poverty. This is because they don't notice, or care about the huge inequality that is the source of our own prosperity. (why can't they all get a load of U.S. computer firms to open up tax laundering fronts in their countries and then they can be rich like us!!)

With respect,Now thats complete rubbish.
The last time I was in washington,there were loads of protesters outside the main gates of the whitehouse decrying mr Bush.
I witnessed one american having a loud debate with some high school students on the Iraq war and it wasn't very pro Bush.Would I get away with shouting down Mr Ahmajinadad outside his house? Probably not.

Protest is allowed as long as it has no chance of changing anything. You can bet your last dollar that if millions of people took to the streets demanding a change of government, the National guard would be out in force and there would be blood on the streets (there's a huge amount of state violence at even harmless protests where people are routinely gassed and battoned for ridiculous infractions like 'stepping off the footpath'

Time Magazine

Akrasia wrote:

well here's what Chomsky has to say

Ah Noam, the bastion of the dis-affected. A crutch for the masses, you might say.

Alas he's fairly off-the-mark when he claims that Bismarck ran a Welfare State. I don't have any data for exactly what government spending was as a fraction of GDP, so I completely admit this is educated speculation, but it certainly wasn't anything like €120 a week if you're unemployed.

Chomsky speaks of Ricardian and Malthusian economics, neither of which lived before the publication of national accounts, the advent of JM Keynes and the intervention of government, the rise of the monetarists and the Thatcherite-regimes that subsequently followed. Comparing modern economics to Malthusian economics is akin to comparing the Irish legal system to the Brehon Laws.


Observe the trend in government expenditure, not only in real terms, but as a fraction of GDP. Keynes changed everything. The free market is an illusion.

Europe still has some remainents of socialism (hard won over generations of social and labour rights activists) but these are under constant threat from the right wing free market capitalists wherever they have power.

The graph above is replicated in just about every country in the world. I completely disagree with your assertion that "right wing free market capitalists" somehow hate government spending.


Have things really been so bad?

In America the Labour movement has been crushed, Social programs are barely existent and Corporations are left to their own devices. Today Wal-mart were accused of operating secret spying programs against political groups and employees. This included infiltrating an activist group and recording their conversations in a surveillance truck parked outside, and Hacking into the personal e-mail accounts of private citizens.

And they should be severely punished for this, they are a very bad bunch.

The Government has been tapping people's phones and spying on their electronic communication for years now and targeting individuals based purely on their political beliefs.

This has nothing to do with the free-market. Left-wing government tap phones all the time.

You said "In a world dominated by free markets and capitalist enterprise, there is no such thing as Human rights." So going by your previous ramblings about Ireland's non-functioning democracy and corporate culture, you think there are no human rights observed in Ireland? Or am I to ignore any future remarks about corporate culture in Ireland, seeing as we do indeed have outstanding human rights?

brianthebard

Tristrame wrote:

Bush isn't America.Fair enough he's got the top job there but with any luck a democrat could have that and possibly a black muslim...

Are you proposing a what if situation or are you talking about Obama? Because he's not a muslim.

Also, lolz at the Bismarck welfare state! Socialism was illegal for several years during Bismarck's term(s) in office and when he finally did give in to demands by workers it definitely didn't come anywhere near creating a welfare state.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

The only 'generalisation' I was propagating was the fact that different people have very different life experiences even if they sgare the same city or country.
relative to population size? the statistics for poverty lack of education, unemployment adn incarceration as a proportion of the overall population for minorities are heavily skewed. Black people are many times more likely to be poor and go to jail than white people. Black people are only 12% of the U.S. population but make up 46% of the prison population. This is not because they commit more crimes, it's because they are targeted by the police and shown no mercy in the court systems.

The only generalisation?

It's because they either don't notice the inequality, or they don't care about it. Either way, that doesn't make the Inequality and disadvantage disappear.

It's because you exaggerate the inequality and you don't care about perspective.Either way it doesn't make the inequality and disadvantage the huge problem you make it out to be.

Protest is allowed as long as it has no chance of changing anything. You can bet your last dollar that if millions of people took to the streets demanding a change of government, the National guard would be out in force and there would be blood on the streets

millions of people took to the polling booths and changed the ownership of congress or hadn't you noticed?

(there's a huge amount of state violence at even harmless protests where people are routinely gassed and battoned for ridiculous infractions like 'stepping off the footpath'

routinely? yeah and right... :rolleyes:

Come back to me when you've finished the generalising and the mis informed rants...

brianthebard

brianthebard wrote:

Are you proposing a what if situation or are you talking about Obama? Because he's not a muslim.

I know he's not.But he is black and I reckon a christian could not become head of state in Iran whereas a muslim at least in theory could in the U.S.

Also, lolz at the Bismarck welfare state! Socialism was illegal for several years during Bismarck's term(s) in office and when he finally did give in to demands by workers it definitely didn't come anywhere near creating a welfare state.

That wasn't my post

GuanYin

Hobbes wrote:

He is voted in. He and the administration he sets up speak for America.

Thats pretty narrow and unrealistic thinking. He was the country's commander in a time of war. He was voted in on that fact alone and even then only by an extremely narrow margin.

The US will never remove a president while there are large numbers of troops under enemy fire.

If any act says anything about the countries political stance it was the congressional and senate elections which have effectively removed Bush's power.

And having the freedom to choose between only two people to vote for is not freedom.

Agreed, however you can't compare the US's political governance with that of Ireland or, say, the UK.

Effectively you have 50 separate countries voting for one overall leader. I'd be interested to see what type of system the EU would adopt if we were actually governed from Brussels in the manner the US is governed from DC. I dount we'd have the multi-party system we're familiar with.

So what? We compare which is the best place by which one does the least wrongs? They are both as bad as each other.

Its a fairly stupid question topic for a thread, considering it's far too blanketed to be a fair question. The extremes of lifestyle in the US are as extreme as the EU. States vary as much in lifestyle as Dublin and Kosovo do. Iran is much less varied.

Like America it depends very much who you are and your rank in society.

Moreso where you live to be honest. It's still quite easy to come here with nothing and make a nice living, as thousands of Irish immigrants here will testify.

mike65

I can't belive the title of this thread.

Shall the comparitive merits of living in say Britain and North Korea follow?

Mike.

GuanYin

mike65 wrote:

I can't belive the title of this thread.

Shall the comparitive merits of living in say Britain and North Korea follow?

Mike.

I dunno, have you ever been to Cornwall?

brianthebard

Tristrame wrote:

I know he's not.But he is black and I reckon a christian could not become head of state in Iran whereas a muslim at least in theory could in the U.S.

Tbh I think you will find it is equally hard for minorities to get elected in any country. Afaik Obama is only the fifth African American senator. And he hasn't been elected to president yet( despite what some democrats would like to believe). In theory a muslim may have the possibility of being elected but that doesn't make it any truer. Christianity is a recognised religion in Iran at least, and while there have been attacks, deaths, etc over the years a lot of that can be attributed to a sense of paranoia that Iranian Christians may be west leaning. While there has probably been more harassment in Iran because its been happening longer, in many ways this is very similar to the treatment of muslims in the US post 9/11 and the incarceration of muslims, both US citizens and otherwise, at Guantanemo Bay without trial or any other niceities.

That wasn't my post

Sorry for the confusion I was too lazy to quote Ibid cause my post was under it.

Time Magazine

brianthebard wrote:

Sorry for the confusion I was too lazy to quote Ibid cause my post was under it.

It wasn't my quote either .

brianthebard

Ibid wrote:

It wasn't my quote either .

In that case I was just being lazy.

purple'n'gold

IMHO Sen. Barack Obama has two chances of being elected president, slim and nil, and Slim just left town.

Akrasia

brianthebard wrote:

Are you proposing a what if situation or are you talking about Obama? Because he's not a muslim.

Also, lolz at the Bismarck welfare state! Socialism was illegal for several years during Bismarck's term(s) in office and when he finally did give in to demands by workers it definitely didn't come anywhere near creating a welfare state.

I don't know much about german history, but this is from wikipedia

The 1880s were a period when Germany started on its long road towards the welfare state it is today. The Social Democrat, National Liberal and Center parties were all involved in the beginnings of social legislation, but it was Bismarck who established the first practical aspects of this program. The program of the Social Democrats included all of the programs that Bismarck eventually implemented, but also included programs designed to preempt the programs championed by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Bismark’s idea was to implement the minimum aspects of these programs that were acceptable to the German government without any of the overtly Socialistic aspects.

Bismarck opened debate on the subject on 1881-11-17 in the Imperial Message to the Reichstag. Applying the term applied Christianity to his program, he outlined a program that actually had nothing to do with Christianity directly, but was an attempt to dump the wind from the sails of the afore-mentioned parties.

Bismarck’s program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase productivity, and focus the political attentions of German workers on supporting the existing government, and ceasing their political clamoring for additional relief from current working conditions. The program included Health Insurance; Accident Insurance (Workman’s Compensation); Disability Insurance; and an Old-age Retirement Pension, none of which were then currently in existence to any great degree.

Based on Bismarck’s message, The Reichstag filed three bills designed to deal with the concept of Accident insurance, and one for Health Insurance. The subjects of Retirement pensions and Disability Insurance were placed on the back burner for the time being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Bismarck.E2.80.99s_Social_Legislation

So Chomsky isn;t as foolish as you think he is

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

The only generalisation?

It was the whole point I was trying to make,

It's because you exaggerate the inequality and you don't care about perspective.Either way it doesn't make the inequality and disadvantage the huge problem you make it out to be. millions of people took to the polling booths and changed the ownership of congress or hadn't you noticed?

And another set of billionaires get to make the decisions for America. And they still refuse to fulfil their mandate and force a withdrawal from Iraq

routinely? yeah and right... :rolleyes:

Semantics

AbusesToilets

With regards Obama's ability to get elected,it's worth remembering that there's only been one non-protestant/christian elected in US history.
TBH i haven't seen anything from him that is particularly interesting,he's doing a fine job riding his looks and "uniqueness" but not much substance to him.

brianthebard

Akrasia wrote:

I don't know much about german history, but this is from wikipedia
So Chomsky isn't as foolish as you think he is

Not saying he's foolish, just that he is grossly over exaggerating the level of welfare put in place by Bismarck.

Akrasia

Ibid wrote:

Ah Noam, the bastion of the dis-affected. A crutch for the masses, you might say.

Alas he's fairly off-the-mark when he claims that Bismarck ran a Welfare State. I don't have any data for exactly what government spending was as a fraction of GDP, so I completely admit this is educated speculation, but it certainly wasn't anything like €120 a week if you're unemployed.

Chomsky speaks of Ricardian and Malthusian economics, neither of which lived before the publication of national accounts, the advent of JM Keynes and the intervention of government, the rise of the monetarists and the Thatcherite-regimes that subsequently followed. Comparing modern economics to Malthusian economics is akin to comparing the Irish legal system to the Brehon Laws.


Observe the trend in government expenditure, not only in real terms, but as a fraction of GDP. Keynes changed everything. The free market is an illusion.

Yes the free market is an illusion because if such a society/economy would ever exist, it would collapse within a very short time.
Most free market economists are merely satisfied with a close to zero regulatory environment while still having the state there to provide stability and security.
Your graphs show government spending, they don't show the true distribution of wealth. In most of the world, the proportion of national wealth being held in the hands of the richest 5% is on a constant upward trajectory, while the share of the wealth owned by the poorest is on a downward path.
This happens within countries, and globally.
http://hdr.undp.org/docs/statistics/understanding/resources/HDR_2003_2_2_global_income_inequality.pdf

Human Development Report 2002 noted that
while the definition of global income inequality is
fuzzy and its trends ambiguous, there is widespread
consensus on its grotesque levels. This has
not changed. Incomes are distributed more unequally
across the world’s people (with a Gini coefficient
of 0.66) than in the most unequal countries
(Brazil, for example, has a Gini coefficient of
0.61). (The Gini coefficient is a measure of income
inequality that ranges between 0, indicating perfect
equality, and 1, indicating complete inequality.)
The richest 5% of the world’s people receive
114 times the income of the poorest 5%. The richest
1% receive as much as the poorest 57%. And
the 25 million richest Americans have as much income
as almost 2 billion of the world’s poorest
people (Milanovic 2002, pp. 51–92).

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

It was the whole point I was trying to make,

you didn't make a point though,you generalised.

And another set of billionaires get to make the decisions for America. And they still refuse to fulfil their mandate and force a withdrawal from Iraq

Ah I see it's money you don't like ok.

Semantics

so you're another one of those posters who give one word irrelevant replies when faced with someone showing you what you said is generalisation in the extreme.
Grand so but don't expect me to take you too seriously.

In most of the world, the proportion of national wealth being held in the hands of the richest 5% is on a constant upward trajectory, while the share of the wealth owned by the poorest is on a downward path.

For the second time this week looking at a post like that I'm forced to put on my marian finnucane Gift grub voice and say ...Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand Hoooooooooooow are you going to solve that ?

Time Magazine

Akrasia wrote:

Yes the free market is an illusion because if such a society/economy would ever exist, it would collapse within a very short time.
Most free market economists are merely satisfied with a close to zero regulatory environment while still having the state there to provide stability and security.
Your graphs show government spending, they don't show the true distribution of wealth. In most of the world, the proportion of national wealth being held in the hands of the richest 5% is on a constant upward trajectory, while the share of the wealth owned by the poorest is on a downward path.
This happens within countries, and globally]

The divergence between the rich world and the poor world is absolutely harrowing, I completely agree.

Unfortunately that has little do with the free market.

What has happened is that governmental bodies have adopted foolish policy after foolish policy implemented by inadequate and corrupt governments to a populace that do not work as hard as their European or North-American counterparts in a geo-physical climate that is not conducive to economic growth while first-world bodies practice protectionism (yes, protectionism, the antithesis of the free-marketeer) to the detriment of developing nations.

To suggest that free markets have caused the problems that LDCs face is ridiculous.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Ah I see it's money you don't like ok.

No, it's inequality. Are you deliberately misrepresenting my position?

so you're another one of those posters who give one word irrelevant replies when faced with someone showing you what you said is generalisation in the extreme.

No, when you rely on taking individual words from what i say and completely ignoring the context, it's semantics. I said police routinely use violence against protestors and you post 2 examples of peaceful protests to challenge my use of the word routine and ignore the real issue of significant state repression of protest and dissent in America.

For the second time this week looking at a post like that I'm forced to put on my marian finnucane Gift grub voice and say ...Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand Hoooooooooooow are you going to solve that ?

That's just a condescending way of saying "So what if capitalism is making poverty worse"
There are alternatives, I don't think you're stupid enough to believe this "end of history" nonsense

Akrasia

Ibid wrote:

The divergence between the rich world and the poor world is absolutely harrowing, I completely agree.

Unfortunately that has little do with the free market.

What has happened is that governmental bodies have adopted foolish policy after foolish policy implemented by inadequate and corrupt governments to a populace that do not work as hard as their European or North-American counterparts in a geo-physical climate that is not conducive to economic growth while first-world bodies practice protectionism (yes, protectionism, the antithesis of the free-marketeer) to the detriment of developing nations.

To suggest that free markets have caused the problems that LDCs face is ridiculous.

So how come income inequality has been increasing faster over than the last 20 years than before and fastest in the countries with the lowest regulations?

And are you seriously saying that Africans and south Americans are poor because they do not work as hard as Europeans? The teenage girls who make Nike Shoes probably work more hours in one week than many rich executives works in a month

Since NAFTA, inequality in Mexico and the United states has increased massively. Free trade agreements facilitate the race to the bottom as capital always flows to the cheapest least regulated places to do business. (until these economies collapse because of the inherent unsustainability of laissez faire capitalism.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

No, it's inequality. Are you deliberately misrepresenting my position?

oh you mean perfection? Sorry thats never been available in this world,I hope you are not disappointed.Theres nothing wrong with aspiring it though.I recommend a sabatical for you say out in Africa working for concern or Bóthar.
Trust me it will be much more effective soulwise for you than platitudes on the internet when it comes to desires of equality.It will feel like you are doing something.
As for expecting enough other people to do the same,that will only happen when you come up with the process for the eradication of selfishness from the human psychic.

No, when you rely on taking individual words from what i say and completely ignoring the context, it's semantics. I said police routinely use violence against protestors and you post 2 examples of peaceful protests to challenge my use of the word routine and ignore the real issue of significant state repression of protest and dissent in America.

I show you widespread protests with not a tear gas canister in sight and you choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit you.
You said routine I call that generalising which is misinformation which in actual fact is ironic.

That's just a condescending way of saying "So what if capitalism is making poverty worse"
There are alternatives, I don't think you're stupid enough to believe this "end of history" nonsense

You'd want to be looking for an alternative to the human race while you are at it because the human race is selfish.
They look out for the "self".

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

oh you mean perfection? Sorry thats never been available in this world,I hope you are not disappointed.Theres nothing wrong with aspiring it though.I recommend a sabatical for you say out in Africa working for concern or Bóthar.
Trust me it will be much more effective soulwise for you than platitudes on the internet when it comes to desires of equality.It will feel like you are doing something.
As for expecting enough other people to do the same,that will only happen when you come up with the process for the eradication of selfishness from the human psychic.
I show you widespread protests with not a tear gas canister in sight and you choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit you.
You said routine I call that generalising which is misinformation which in actual fact is ironic.
You'd want to be looking for an alternative to the human race while you are at it because the human race is selfish.
They look out for the "self".

you accuse me of generalising and then go and say "the human race is selfish" as if that's the end of the discussion. That is ironic
man is selfish, but he is also social. Capitalism is an artificial economic and social system built entirely on competition and individualism. Of course that is going to have an effect on how people behave.

There are viable alternative ways of organising using principles of cooperation, mutual aid that are far healthier and more efficient ways of organising society. We don't even need to go all the way to true socialism to make a real positive difference. We just need to reign in corporate exploitation and take away most of the incredible amount of power that a tiny number of individuals have over the fate of the world and give that power back to the people through improved forms of democracy and governance.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

you accuse me of generalising and then go and say "the human race is selfish" as if that's the end of the discussion. That is ironic
man is selfish, but he is also social. Capitalism is an artificial economic and social system built entirely on competition and individualism. Of course that is going to have an effect on how people behave.

Capitalism didn't invent selfishness.
It was the other way round.

There are viable alternative ways of organising using principles of cooperation, mutual aid that are far healthier and more efficient ways of organising society. We don't even need to go all the way to true socialism to make a real positive difference. We just need to reign in corporate exploitation and take away most of the incredible amount of power that a tiny number of individuals have over the fate of the world and give that power back to the people through improved forms of democracy and governance.

\o/ \o/ \o/

akrasia for world leader.

Oh wait you have to convince the selfish people democratically of course