Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why - Page 5

Ned · December 21, 2003, 18:58

OB, I think you confuse government regulation of business's right to contract, its prices, and limits on competition that one typically finds in the third world with social democracy, which really is about government programs directed primarily to the poor and that are financed by taxes on a robust economy. To the extent America tries to reduce government regulations on business, America is promoting a better business climate that leads to the robust economy that supports social welfare.

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 19:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I want a definitive cite that the US fully supported the rebellion against him.

Is a U.S. congressional investigation a definitive source?

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 19:04

Show it then. I want to see where a 'Congressional investigation' said that the US supported the coup.

Ned · December 21, 2003, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

And another common factor are the unusually low wages of the workers compared to the unusually high profits of the enterprises.

We can only laugh at the oligarchs' ludicrous hypocrisy when they claim that the free market is improving the poor's condition while they are filling their own pockets with millions.

Every human has just one life. Justice is an ABSOLUTE and IMMEDIATE requirement, that ought not be gradually bought through unnecessary sacrifice and perilous economic development.

OB, it almost universally true that what you define as low wages are significantly higher than the wages they could make without working at the factories. Most times, these wages are orders of magnitude higher.

The level of profit of any company totally depends on the degree of competition. Many, if not most companies, in the US have had little or no profit for some years now.

Ned · December 21, 2003, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Schumpeter I believe it was, a world famous Austrian economist, who was never a 'socialist' however that word is understood, but a conservative, thought monopolies to be a feasible way of running an effecient economy, since what really counts is not free-market competition, but the socalled 'entrepreneurial spirit' (I believe Bush is a believer in that too). Monopolies force people of an entrepreneurial mind to find new products to market instead of competing in a hopeless battle on the same product-line. In that sense monopolies actually increases the product line and hence are catalysts of economic growth.

So to accuse the left of conspiratorial thoughts is in this instance a little too harsh in my oppinion. And I don't think it neccesary to direct people's attention to the fact that quite recently the right have been very prone to believing in vast conspiracies.

We, theories asside, we have actual proof thoughout modern history that competition is what creates new products, improves old ones bring maximum efficiency to their production. Monopolies in contract bring the nothing of the above.

Rightist conspiracy theories? Are you suggesting guys like Mahathir are rightists? If so, then I would agree with you, because conspiracy theories like his are even worse than the conspiracy theories from the likes of Hillary Clinton who again confirmed last week that there is a "vast rightwing conspriracy."

Agathon · December 21, 2003, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Show it then. I want to see where a 'Congressional investigation' said that the US supported the coup.

I don't know about that. Carmona and the other plotters found cozy homes in the US afterwards and Condi Rice was gloating when the coup looked like it would succeed.

A doco I saw claimed US involvement, or at least support; but who knows?

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 19:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Show it then. I want to see where a 'Congressional investigation' said that the US supported the coup.

The Office of Investor General has published a report in response to questions by sen. Chrisopher Dodd. The report naturally clears SPECIFICALLY the State dept and Embassy Caracas of any complicity. Unfortunately there is a socalled classified annex to the report, which will not be made public in 50 years or so. Here it is probable that the School of Americas have been involved, which I believe is under the jurisdiction of the Defense dept, who after all are the one's running US foreign policy now.

Winston · December 21, 2003, 19:44

In other words, pure speculation on your part. Which was to be expected.

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
In other words, pure speculation on your part. Which was to be expected.

In other words i don't feel like hacking into the classified reports of the US congress, nor the Pentagon, as I am sure is not good for your health.

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 19:54

Classified reports say so... that's hilarious.

Oerdin · December 21, 2003, 19:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ceteram
I am in shock. If the population sample in this thread is representative, we are looking into a very nasty future indeed. Misinformation rules.

I agree. Misinformation rules; one simply has to read your misinformed post to find that out.

Quote:

How could you possibly argue that the US is NOT on an imperialistic course, securing bases and prime resource areas, while their exceptionally ridiculous prez throws around sentences like "If you're not with us, you're against us", etc...

EVERYONE who knows anything about the context of that speech knows it was specifically targeted at the government of Pakistan. The Pakistans wanted to claim neutrality while continuing to support the Taliban following 9/11. That phrase, which so many left leaning people just love to misquote out of context, was for a very specific case and not as a general policy statement.

[/quote]
Can anybody explain why there are US personnel in Georgia?
First supportive of Shevardnaze, then, once the people kick him out with force, change over to supporting the ex-opposition?!?[/quote]

I'm going to break it down for you. During the last Chechen war the Chechen rebels used a portion of Georgia as a base from which to attack Russian forces in Chechnya & Dugistan. The Georgian government was unable to stop the Rebels and Russia stated that they would invade Georgia unless the rebels were forced out. Since Georgia didn't want to be invaded they asked the US to help them which is exactly what the US is now doing.

Quote:

One could think that the US is building a new Wonder called "The Bush Pipeline" or maybe "The Freedom Occupations", how does "Live Ammo Training in the Middle East" sound?

How does that sound? It sounds like the rant of a very uninformed little child.

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
We, theories asside, we have actual proof thoughout modern history that competition is what creates new products, improves old ones bring maximum efficiency to their production. Monopolies in contract bring the nothing of the above.

I won't be a bore and ask for proof of that, but are you sure that competition in itself creates new products, and not only cheaper products. Also if competition is such a wondercure, why do you have agencies sucking up patents left and right, specifically to ensure that there is no competion. For instance true competition in the medical industry would quite simply kill it off very quickly, as the money requied to research, secure, and market new medicines is now so great that only monopolies and strict patent laws will make any profit possible. Just see the debacle over cheap anti-HIV drugs to the Third World, where after all, they are most needed.

The laws of the free market don't work there.

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 20:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Classified reports say so... that's hilarious.

Read these and give me your critique.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HAL205A.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/VUL204A.html

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm going to break it down for you. During the last Chechen war the Chechen rebels used a portion of Georgia as a base from which to attack Russian forces in Chechnya & Dugistan. The Georgian government was unable to stop the Rebels and Russia stated that they would invade Georgia unless the rebels were forced out. Since Georgia didn't want to be invaded they asked the US to help them which is exactly what the US is now doing.

I'm sorry but how can Russia invade Georgia when they already have military bases there. That would be like the US invading Qatar.

And how is the US 'helping' by planning the overthrow of Sjevardnadse and replacing him with a psychotic nationalist mafia boss, whose supporters like to wave with Christian Crusader flags to scare the Muslim minorities.

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 20:09

Both are editorials. They are trying to link some support by the CIA in the past with the coup. Claiming that Chile's coup had anything to do with this one and both defame Otto Reich. Not to mention one of those editorials are from the Observer... tabloids normally should not be trusted for news.

Ned · December 21, 2003, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc

I won't be a bore and ask for proof of that, but are you sure that competition in itself creates new products, and not only cheaper products. Also if competition is such a wondercure, why do you have agencies sucking up patents left and right, specifically to ensure that there is no competion. For instance true competition in the medical industry would quite simply kill it off very quickly, as the money requied to research, secure, and market new medicines is now so great that only monopolies and strict patent laws will make any profit possible. Just see the debacle over cheap anti-HIV drugs to the Third World, where after all, they are most needed.

The laws of the free market don't work there.

Patents are part and parcel of fair competition. If there were no patents, there would be far less research into new products because as soon as they were invented the competition would simply begin to produce them without the associated R&D investment.

Oerdin · December 21, 2003, 20:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A little precision TO EVERYONE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS THREAD

In all of my posts, I never meant "socialism" as an "economic system where the means of production are publicly owned".

Then you don't know what socialism is nor how it differs from communism. There are several different variations but always a communist government is a government where all means of production & business are government owned while a socialist government is a government where the primary means of production (like large automakers or other major industrial enterprises) are government owned but minor or no strategic means of production are privately owned.

Like I said there are various different flavors but those descriptions are always true about either form of government.

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Both are editorials. They are trying to link some support by the CIA in the past with the coup. Claiming that Chile's coup had anything to do with this one and both defame Otto Reich. Not to mention one of those editorials are from the Observer... tabloids normally should not be trusted for news.

Well Otto Reich should take them to court then.

It is just that I am prone to actually believing this, since the history of US involvement in the internal affairs of Latin America is a bit spotty.

I think that if the coup had actually succeded the Bush team would have made no secret that they were behind it. After all both Sixty minutes and New York Times had made it look as if Chavez was a raving lunatic. Also mr Chavez had publicly accused the US army in Afganistan of being 'child killers' which you might imagine would have hurt some feelings.

Also what was the 'US coastguard' doing in Venezuelan waters during the coup? Why was there not an immediate condemnation by Washington of the unconstitutional coup? It was only when it failed that the coup was condemned. And why is that every time there is a coup or countercoup that goes against the American interest the perpetrators flee to the US? For instance the couped Bolivian president did that just a few months ago.

But maybe that is all propaganda. Nevertheless it is working, because as I've heard on the news Anti-Americanism in Latin America is currently at an all time high. Even those who believed that America was a neccesary presence to fight communism, have now come to question the true motives, since as you know thre is no communism in Latin America to speak of, yet the Us still is exerting pressure.

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 20:25

Quote:

Well Otto Reich should take them to court then.

A public figure can only win on defamation if the writing was intentionaly malicious.

Quote:

Why was there not an immediate condemnation by Washington of the unconstitutional coup?

Because what would have happened if the coup ended up surviving? You really want to piss off the potential government by calling them illegitimate? Saying they are wrong on policy is one thing. Saying they shouldn't be in power is another thing altogether.

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Patents are part and parcel of fair competition. If there were no patents, there would be far less research into new products because as soon as they were invented the competition would simply begin to produce them without the associated R&D investment.

Yes, but having companies actually buying up patents, in order to prevent competition is not very helpful. Even patents of products which can not be lined by that company, except at some time in the future. And how can one be absolutely sure that when a company holds monopoly over a product the price is an actual reflection of the time and resources gone into reseach and development, and that no jump in the price has occured, which derives from the very fact of monopolization?

JohnT · December 21, 2003, 21:17

One thing about the fanatical left...

1. They like to redefine terms in the middle of the debate.

2. They love to cite opinion pieces as evidence.

Well, 2 things I guess...

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
One thing about the fanatical left...

....

2. They love to cite opinion pieces as evidence.

Well, 2 things I gues...

This was not presented as evidence, but as background information, which i proposed for a critique. As stated the evidence is classified.

One thing about the fanatical right. They like to lie and misrepresent facts.

JohnT · December 21, 2003, 21:33

Well, it happens here all the time. You're just continuing a four year trend, Triple.

Oncle Boris · December 21, 2003, 21:49

Quote:

Yes, yes I do

. I'm saying equating Social-Democracy to Socialism is a fallacy and any true socialist would kick you kick the balls for that. I don't care if some uninformed people think SD = socialism, that ain't it.

I am not talking Politics here. I am at the level of goddam LINGUISTICS.

I am saying that a word does not have the same meaning in America as in other parts of the world. No one ever claims that SD=socialism. They don't even claim anything. It is I, in fact, who is informing you of something you don't seem to be aware of: that the word they use to describe what you call SD is socialism, and the word they use to describe what you call socialism is more like Communism. (Yes, this phrasing has a slight disadvantage: "Communism" as defined by Marx doesn't get its word. But the semantic tradition is here, and there's not much that can be done about it).
In no way is there a difference between the definitions. Only the terms are different.
I fail to see any intelligent reasoning behind your point. These guys are not uninformed: they are only using different words to describe the same reality.

I remember being ridiculized by JohnT because I didn't understand correctly the world "liberal" in US tradition. I doubt you've shown any intent other than mocking me by insisting so much on a case this obvious. The more you speak, the more I am subjugated by your sarcastic genius.

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 21:51

Quote:

that the word they use to describe what you call SD is socialism, and the word they use to describe what you call socialism is more like Communism.

Yeah, I know that... it's incorrect however. True socialists, even in Europe would totally blanch at being lumped in with the likes of Schroeder. Rosa Luxembourg and Raffarin don't belong in the same sentance with each other.

Oncle Boris · December 21, 2003, 21:56

Quote:

Yeah, I know that... it's incorrect however. True socialists, even in Europe would totally blanch at being lumped in with the likes of Schroeder. Rosa Luxembourg and Raffarin don't belong in the same sentance with each other.

I would point out that even the USSR called itself Communism. And they have never claimed to be the end of history.

True SDs would blanch at being lumped in with the likes of Lenin and Honecker.

Tripledoc · December 21, 2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Rosa Luxembourg and Raffarin don't belong in the same sentance with each other.

Raffarin is a moderate liberal free marketeer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1970512.stm

Or maybe I just don't get this discussion at all.

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 21:58

Quote:

I would point out that even the USSR called itself Communism. And they have never claimed to be the end of history.

True SDs would blanch at being lumped in with the likes of Lenin and Honecker.

And how many times have you heard the (true) mantra that the Soviet Union wasn't "true communism"?

Why would SDs be lumped in with Lenin? Lenin is a socialist or 'command communist', not a center-left democratic party.

Oncle Boris · December 21, 2003, 22:03

Quote:

And how many times have you heard the (true) mantra that the Soviet Union wasn't "true communism"?

I'm not an USSR expert, but personally I've not seen much of Marx dialectics being used in propaganda. Not in any way that would render homage to the man's brilliance.

Quote:

Why would SDs be lumped in with Lenin? Lenin is a socialist or 'command communist', not a center-left democratic party.

I don't know why they would. As for yourself, why should Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg be lumped with the SDs anyway?
I was kinda... mocking you...

Imran Siddiqui · December 21, 2003, 22:05

Quote:

As for yourself, why should Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg be lumped with the SDs anyway?

If SDs are socialist then they'd have to be lumped with Luxembourg, who actually are socialists... duh

.

Quote:

I was kinda... mocking you...

Poorly.