Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #889505 - 09/17/02 07:26 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

So how does a landlord or anybody for that matter, righfully own something

By performing the necessary actions to produce the thing (i.e. build it) or by trading (which is an action) something else (usually but not always currency) for an already produced thing.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #889564 - 09/17/02 07:49 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Senor Doobie writes:

I was curious as to whether those Dominicans who work in US-owned factories make enough money to feed themselves and their families.

Yes, they do. As a matter of fact, they make more than enough to do so. And I must point out that Dominican families are BIG families. Making babies is the national pastime.

The new government here made some changes to the conditions under which foreign companies can operate. As a result, early this year a number of companies shut down their operations here. Some were American, but most were Asian... a few from Hong Kong, the rest from Taiwan.

The closing of these businesses left 8,000 Dominicans unemployed. Listin Diario, the most popular daily newspaper in the country, ran a series of articles about the closures, and pointed out that not only were 8,000 factory workers now jobless, but also estimated that before the end of the year another 14,000 people would be unemployed. The 14,000 referred to were those who worked in locally owned businesses patronized exclusively (or nearly exclusively) by the 8,000 factory workers and their dependents, which would now go out of business due to lack of customers.

So, not only were those who worked in the foreign factories making enough to support themselves and their families, they had enough disposable income to support a "sub-industry" which provided an additional 1.75 jobs per factory worker.

I don't know how accurate Listin Diario's estimates are. Maybe the real figure is lower than 14,000, maybe it is higher. I do know that the economists providing those estimates have had a lot of practice at this exercise, so I would guess that the estimates are probably not off by a lot.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #889781 - 09/17/02 10:22 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

As promised, here is how the American intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 came about. First, let's look at what Lallafa's source has to say:

In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.


So far, all of this is true. Or at least close enough not to quibble over, except for the phrase "modest nationalization of business". Many Dominicans I have spoken to say there was nothing "modest" about Bosch's nationalization plans at all. But from here on, the author deliberately misrepresents what happened.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.

Right. Just as they discouraged Castro with a frown. *sarcasm*

This is the standard "heads I win, tails you lose" approach of those critical of the US. If the US takes action (tries to prevent a change of government) it is castigated for interfering with the internal politics of a sovereign state (this is expressly forbidden by the UN charter, by the way). On the other hand, if it follows the UN rules and keeps its hands off, it is criticized for allowing the bad guys to seize power. Textbook example of hypocrisy.

Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

The troops stabilized the country and allowed free elections to be held. At that time, it was the most scrupulously fair election that had ever been held in Latin America, with scrutineers from several OAS (Organization of American States) countries supervising it -- specifically Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Paraguay and Costa Rica. Bosch was one of the candidates. He lost, fair and square, to Balaguer. As a matter of fact, he lost every other time he ran, too. He died earlier this year, as did Balaguer.

I won't bother posting everything about this incident from http://www.countryreports.org/history/dominhist.htm here in this post. Those interested in more details can browse the site at their leisure. But here are a few snips that are relevant:

"The Bosch administration was very much an oddity in Dominican history up to that point: a freely elected, liberal, democratic government that expressed concern for the welfare of all Dominicans, particularly those of modest circumstances, those whose voices had never really been heard before in the National Palace. The 1963 constitution separated church and state, guaranteed civil and individual rights, and endorsed civilian control of the military. These and other changes, such as land reform, struck conservative landholders and military officers as radical and threatening, particularly when juxtaposed against three decades of somnolent authoritarianism under Trujillo. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church also resented the secular nature of the new constitution, in particular its provision for legalized divorce. The hierarchy, along with the military leadership and the economic elite, also feared communist influence in the republic, and they warned of the potential for "another Cuba." The result of this concern and opposition was a military coup on September 25, 1963."

"The coup effectively negated the 1962 elections by installing a civilian junta, known as the Triumvirate, dominated by the UCN."

***Pinky notes: Even the installation of puppet civilians would not have occurred if not for US pressure. From http://fuentes.csh.udg.mx/CUCSH/Sincronia/dominican.html

"In September of 1963, the military overthrew Bosch. He went into exile in Puerto Rico. When news of the coup reached Washington, President Kennedy was highly disturbed. The President stopped all U.S. aid and withdrew his ambassador. After several months of U.S. pressure, military leaders in the Dominican Republic decided to establish a civilian Triumvirate. Kennedy, disillusioned with the prospects for democracy and the progress of the Alliance, decided to recognize the new government." ***

Okay... back to the story:

"The initial head of the Triumvirate, Emilio de los Santos, resigned on December 23 and was replaced by Donald Reid Cabral. The Triumvirate never succeeded in establishing its authority over competing conservative factions both inside and outside the military; it also never convinced the majority of the population of its legitimacy. The widespread dissatisfaction with Reid and his government, coupled with lingering loyalties to Bosch, produced a revolution in April 1965."

"The vanguard of the 1965 revolution, the perredeistas (members of the PRD) and other supporters of Bosch, called themselves Constitutionalists (a reference to their support for the 1963 constitution). The movement counted some junior military officers among its ranks. A combination of reformist military and aroused civilian combatants took to the streets on April 24, seized the National Palace, and installed Rafael Molina Ure?a as provisional president. The revolution took on the dimensions of a civil war when conservative military forces, led by army general El?as Wess?n y Wess?n, struck back against the Constitutionalists on April 25. These conservative forces called themselves Loyalists. Despite tank assaults and bombing runs by Loyalist forces, however, the Constitutionalists held their positions in the capital; they appeared poised to branch out and to secure control of the entire country."

"On April 28, the United States intervened in the civil war. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered in forces that eventually totaled 20,000, to secure Santo Domingo and to restore order. Johnson had acted in the stated belief that the Constitutionalists were dominated by communists and that they therefore could not be allowed to come to power. The intervention was subsequently granted some measure of hemispheric approval by the creation of an OAS-sponsored peace force, which supplemented the United States military presence in the republic. An initial interim government was headed by Trujillo assassin Imbert; H?ctor Garc?a Godoy assumed a provisional presidency on September 3, 1965. Violent skirmishes between Loyalists and Constitutionalists went on sporadically as, once again, elections were organized."

*** Pinky notes: Although the Constitutionalists had some Communist elements, they were not the dominant force, contrary to Lyndon Johnson's belief at the time. From http://fuentes.csh.udg.mx/CUCSH/Sincronia/dominican.html

"Although there were Communist involved in the revolt, it is important to note that they were only one faction in a large group of organizations determined to reinstate Jaun Bosch. It is also important to recognize that of the three Communist groups in the Dominican Republic only the 14 June (1J4) movement was Castro oriented. The leaders and most of the participants in the Dominican Revolt were anti-Communist or non-Communist." ***

Back to the story:

"A fractious campaign ensued between the country's two leading political figures: Bosch and Balaguer. Bosch's appeal was tempered by fear; many Dominicans felt that his reelection would rekindle the violence of April 1965. This trepidation aided Balaguer, who also appealed to conservative voting sectors such as peasants, women (considered to be more religious than men), and businesspeople. Balaguer thus won handily, garnering 57 percent of the vote in balloting held July 1, 1966. His Reformist Party (Partido Reformista--PR) also captured majorities in the Congress. "

One final comment from http://fuentes.csh.udg.mx/CUCSH/Sincronia/dominican.html --

"The most important outcome that clearly falls in the winner column is the return of democracy to the Dominican Republic. Perhaps it was democracy through default but nonetheless the Dominican people were able to elect their leader on 1 June 1966. Balaguer and Bosch both returned home and faced each other off at the ballot box. Balaguer was the undisputed winner with 57% of the vote."

As you can tell from the phrasing used, neither author really approved of the US intervention. However, both grudgingly admit that the intervention had the desired result: those who had overthrown a democratically elected government had been ousted, a bloody civil war had been cut short, and the Dominican people once again had a democratically elected government of their own choosing.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #890306 - 09/18/02 04:43 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Sorry man but anyone who says Joachim Balaguer had anything to do with democracy is living in a dream world. Trujillo was one of the most monstrous tyrants in history and Balaguer was his right hand man. His regime was characterised by mass murder, rounding up protestors and summary executions of political opponents.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #890664 - 09/18/02 08:13 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Sorry man but anyone who says Joachim Balaguer had anything to do with democracy is living in a dream world.

Sigh. What part of the democratic process don't you understand? The man was elected by the Dominican people. SIX TIMES between 1966 and 1994. He didn't gain power by a coup, he was ELECTED. And re-elected. And RE-ELECTED.

Having said that, I personally think Balaguer was a jerk, and I never understood his appeal. I think the Dominican people were mistaken to elect him so many times. I certainly never voted for him, and was delighted to see him retire. The president who followed him, Leonel Fernandez, was in my opinion the best this country has seen yet, and I was not a happy camper to see him leave. The current president is a buffoon. But much as I disagreed with Balaguer's policies, I cannot deny that he was elected democratically.

The point, my dear Alex, is not that the Dominican people elected someone whose politics you (or I) disagreed with, the point is that he was ELECTED. Repeatedly.

Both Juan Bosch and Balaguer died in the last year, Balaguer just a couple of months ago. I happened to be in the capital, Santo Domingo, the day of his funeral. It was a madhouse. There was such a genuine outpouring of grief throughout the entire nation it was amazing. It was really something to witness -- it was as if Elvis had died or something. The funeral procession started at 10:00 am, and they finally managed to get the coffin in the ground at 2:00 am. The entire nation shut down. Literally millions of people turned out to pay their respects, even though Balaguer had been retired since 1996.

Dominicans take their politics VERY seriously. Voter turnout is always very high. This is a nation whose history had consisted of colonial governors and dictator after dictator for more than four and a half centuries, so now that they finally CAN vote, you bet your ass they DO vote. You can also bet your ass they are grateful to the United States (and the OAS) for preserving their right to vote.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #891049 - 09/18/02 11:29 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa, I don't get it. I thought the reason you posted those two links was to provide a reliable source for the claim that 1% of Americans own 50% of America's assets.

I read through both of them (and what a task that was -- those suckers are LONG, especially the first one) and found nowhere in either of them any reference to the proportion of American assets owned by anyone. The closest thing I saw to such a reference was the completely unsupported claim in the first link that "In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America?s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent."

By the way, when I said "reliable", I meant "at least arguably quasi-official". Something like US census figures, or United Nations income distribution studies, or Federal Reserve statistics or European Community international economic analyses or compiled figures from the Organization of Mortgage Providers or something similar, not the ravings of someone intent on convincing his readers the CIA is a tool of the Knights of Malta.

I presume you read the information in the links you post here. You recently posted this link: http://wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/lec1-j05.shtml

from which I paste the following quote:

"The number of billionaires in the United States alone has increased from 13 in 1982 to 149 in 1996 and has increased since then."

Didn't this number tip you off? If there are only a couple of hundred billionaires in the US, the richest of whom is Bill Gates at less than $60 billion (and let's not forget that virtually all of his "wealth" is not hard currency, it is shares whose actual worth varies considerably over the course of a year) and the least rich of whom has one billion dollars, clearly there is no possible way Kangas's claim could be even close to the truth.

Since Mr. Steven Kangas' figures are sheer fantasy, let's do the math ourselves. 1% of Americans equals 2.82 million people. What is the combined net worth of those people? From : http://www.us.cgey.com/news/current_news.asp?ID=240

"There were 2,100,000 high net worth individuals (individuals with a net worth of US $1 million or more) in the United States at the end of 2001, up slightly compared to the previous year, according to Cap Gemini Ernst & Young and Merrill Lynch, which today published the 2002 World Wealth Report."

"The number of HNWIs in North America rose 1.8% to 2.22 million individuals over the past year," said Mr. Martin. The value of their combined wealth grew 1.7% to US$7.6 trillion."

Note that this figure of 7.6 trillion refers to ALL of North America -- Canada, USA, and Mexico. The number of HNWIs in the US alone was 2.1 million, so the value of the combined net worth of AMERICAN HNWIs must therefore be less than 7.48 trillion. How much less? I don't know. For the sake of argument let's be extremely generous and go with 7.3 trillion.

We now have to add the wealth of the remaining 720,000 Americans (2.82 million - 2.1 million) from our top 1%. Since each of them has a net worth of less than 1 million dollars, the total of THEIR combined net worth MUST be less than 720 billion. How much less? I don't know. Let's be extremely generous and call it 700 billion (0.7 trillion).

Therefore, the combined NET WORTH (not the ANNUAL income, note, but TOTAL NET WORTH) of the 2.82 million wealthiest individuals in the United States is AT MOST US$ 8 trillion.

That's a LOT of money, isn't it? Damn skippy! But it isn't anywhere even CLOSE to being 50% of the assets of the United States.

The annual GDI (Gross Domestic Income) of the US in the year 2001 alone was just over 9 trillion dollars (annual per capita INCOME of $32,000 x 282 million). Note that this is not the NET WORTH of the United States, it is not the sum total of all the ASSETS in the United States -- far from it. This is merely the net INCOME in dollars of all United States residents for ONE SINGLE YEAR. I was unable to find a site that gave a figure of the combined assets of the United States. I seriously doubt it is possible to even approximate such a figure. How can you accurately add up the real worth of every house, factory, vehicle, water treatment plant, hydro dam, work of art, television set, bicycle, refrigerator, computer, and deck of playing cards in a nation of 282 million people? Whatever that enormous figure is, clearly it is many many times higher than US $16 trillion (8 trillion x 2).

Conclusion: not only do the wealthiest 1% of Americans own less than 50% of America's ASSETS, they own less than eleven months worth of America's yearly INCOME. That, my socialist friend, is FACT.

Once again, a few seconds of Google search and a few minutes of grade school arithmetic blows another bogus claim completely out of the water.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #891073 - 09/18/02 11:40 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface, and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams.

How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nations elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General "Wild Bill" Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nations rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that "OSS" stood for "Oh, so social!"

Another early elite was Allen Dulles, who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels. He was also a board member of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, with offices in Wall Street, London, Zurich and Hamburg. His financial interests across the world would become a conflict of interest when he became head of the CIA. Like Donavan, he would recruit exclusively from societys elite.


do you deny any of the above claims


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #891077 - 09/18/02 11:44 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa, I don't get it. I thought the reason you posted those two links was to provide a reliable source for the claim that 1% of Americans own 50% of America's assets.

i posted it to show that power breeds power, and there is, in fact, a ruling elite.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #891131 - 09/18/02 12:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Oh, NOW I get it! Even though you first posted an absurd "statistic" as fact, then posted those anti-CIA links in answer to my challenge to support your "fact" (even going so far as to reproduce my challenge word for word just so I could not possibly misunderstand that the links would support your claim), the REAL reason you provided those links was "to show that power breeds power, and there is, in fact, a ruling elite." Well, DUH!

Someone less charitable than myself would say the real reason you posted the links was to change the topic entirely since you knew you'd been caught red-handed disseminating demonstrably false statistics.

Why won't you admit that you just accepted Kangas's statement uncritically? I never believed you just pulled the number out of the air, I knew all along you had come across that number somewhere and just presumed it was accurate. No big deal, man, it happens to the best of us from time to time. I was just happy to be able to set you straight.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #891170 - 09/18/02 12:40 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

lallafa writes:

do you deny any of the above claims

At first glance, I see no reason to dispute his claim that various members of the CIA once worked for financial institutions or vice versa. I will, however, require a lot of convincing before I can accept that the wealth of the richest 1% of Americans is due to CIA activity.

Given Mr. Kangas's demonstrated inability to perform sixth grade arithmetic, I don't think it unreasonable to question his conclusions on matters of commerce.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #891265 - 09/18/02 01:52 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

the statistics are not exact, but they are close enough

and for the record, the first numbers posted were made up. i should have stated that they were my estimate, a representation of the polarization.

there is no need to research what i already know: a very small group has a shitload and everyone else has much less.

"I will, however, require a lot of convincing before I can accept that the wealth of the richest 1% of Americans is due to CIA activity."

yet you admit that the cia has played a huge role in the "success" of us corporations, especially overseas? and you also admit that the cia was born out of the richest of the rich?

i am not trying to change the topic.

i am trying to show you that a product of the capitalist system that is currently implemented is the accumulation of VAST amounts of wealth into the hands of members of the government

in short, the rich end up controlling the government, and influencing it in a way that allows them to accumulate MORE wealth.

are we in agreement that this has happened?

i am not trying to convert you to socialism.

i think we are actually in agreement: the current system is very fucked up and in need of serious reform


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #892215 - 09/18/02 09:16 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa writes:

the statistics are not exact, but they are close enough

Not only are they not "close enough", they're not even within an order of magnitude. Perhaps not even within TWO orders of magnitude.

and for the record, the first numbers posted were made up.

Oh. I must admit I'm surprised. I thought you had just taken Kangas's claim and pumped it up a bit.

yet you admit that the cia has played a huge role in the "success" of us corporations, especially overseas?

The CIA has undoubtedly managed to prevent some (but by no means all) property of US corporations overseas from being seized, yes. Exactly how "huge" an effect that has had on the success of those corporations is unknowable. They also undoubtedly managed to outbribe the Soviets in a number of cases. Again, trying to guess how "huge" an effect that has had on the success of American corporations is an exercise in futility.

and you also admit that the cia was born out of the richest of the rich?

No sir, I do not. Bill Donovan was not one of the "richest of the rich". Allan Dulles, though undeniably wealthier than Donovan, was hardly one of the "richest of the rich" either.

i am trying to show you that a product of the capitalist system that is currently implemented is the accumulation of VAST amounts of wealth into the hands of members of the government

You can call what the US government does "capitalism" till you're blue in the face, and you'd still be wrong. You just can't seem to grasp that the government outrages you object to are the very ANTITHESIS of capitalism. I honestly don't know why I bother to keep correcting you. I guess it's so some reader new to the forum won't swallow your misconceptions without at least looking in his Economics 101 text to see what capitalism really is.

I shake my head in wonderment whenever I see you accuse others of being close-minded and of misrepresenting Marx when it is so glaringly obvious that you have never read even a one paragraph DEFINITION of capitalism in a high school textbook let alone an essay by a capitalist author. Can we say "hypocrisy"?

in short, the rich end up controlling the government, and influencing it in a way that allows them to accumulate MORE wealth.
are we in agreement that this has happened?


Of course it has happened. We disagree about WHY it has happened. I say it is because the government has seized power over the economy in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You say it is because the government hasn't yet seized ENOUGH power over the economy.

i am not trying to convert you to socialism.

That's wise. I'm not trying to convert you to capitalism.

i think we are actually in agreement: the current system is very fucked up and in need of serious reform

The current situation is indeed fucked up. The reforms you espouse will make it even more fucked up.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #892252 - 09/18/02 09:40 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"You can call what the US government does "capitalism" till you're blue in the face, and you'd still be wrong. "

"Of course it has happened. We disagree about WHY it has happened. I say it is because the government has seized power over the economy in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights"

tell me pinky, when the us was "almost purely capitalist" (your definition), did the rockafeller family accumulate gigantic amounts of wealth? did the rockefeller family influence the US government?


your model of pure capitalism, the one you advocate, began the polarization of wealth long before the liberals came in to ruin your capitalist fun

"No sir, I do not. Bill Donovan was not one of the "richest of the rich". Allan Dulles, though undeniably wealthier than Donovan, was hardly one of the "richest of the rich" either."

the cia has always had ties to people with large amounts of wealth
the rockefeller family, for example.

it doesnt take a genius to see that much of the cia intervention in the past was serving the interests of the rich

and pinky, you are welcome to post some of your own numbers.

i would be surprised if they are much different from my original estimate.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #892304 - 09/18/02 10:12 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa writes:

tell me pinky, when the us was "almost purely capitalist" (your definition), did the rockafeller family accumulate gigantic amounts of wealth?

Yes. Did they do so with no favors from government? Arguable.

did the rockefeller family influence the US government?

At the time they were accumulating their wealth or after they had already done so? The Rockefeller dynasty has been around for over a century. But anyway...

Did they try to persuade others to elect candidates of their choosing? Yes. Did they try to get those candidates to pass legislation favorable to their interests? Yes. What's your point?

your model of pure capitalism, the one you advocate, began the polarization of wealth long before the liberals came in to ruin your capitalist fun

If by "polarization of wealth" you mean that some people accumulated more wealth than others, I won't deny that this is possible under Capitalism. It is of course also possible under despotism, fascism, socialism, and communism. There are numerous examples of ultra-wealthy and ultra-poor in all of those socio-economic systems.

the cia has always had ties to people with large amounts of wealth

That's not what you asked. You asked if I admitted that the CIA was "born out of the richest of the rich". It wasn't. Having "ties to people with large amounts of wealth" is NOT the same thing at all. The Catholic church "has ties with" wealthy people. So does the Kiwanis club.

and pinky, you are welcome to post some of your own numbers.

I'm crushed, though not surprised. I ALREADY posted my own numbers. REAL numbers backed by REAL sources, showing the methods used to arrive at the numbers and the conclusion that those numbers lead to. But of course, you didn't bother to read them. And you call ME close-minded?

Look, comrade, I went to those two anti-CIA links you posted, and I read the entire sites in the belief that they had some relevance to the issue under discussion. And they were LONG freakin' sites, filled with slanted, misrepresented, undocumented rhetoric. Yet I read through them anyway.

I then took the time to present in a logical, organized manner, what the REAL situation was with the wealthiest 1% of Americans. I did you the courtesy of wading through that claptrap you linked. The least you could do is read my rebuttal.

i would be surprised if they are much different from my original estimate.

Well then, you're in for a surprise. If you ever do get around to reading them you'll see they are nowhere near your original estimate.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #892330 - 09/18/02 10:39 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"Did they try to persuade others to elect candidates of their choosing? Yes. Did they try to get those candidates to pass legislation favorable to their interests? Yes. What's your point? "

did they use the us government to acquire more wealth?
Yes.

"The region is the focus of a key US-initiated military operation aimed at guarding a pipeline used to pump out oil from fields operated by US-based Occidental Petroleum. The US provided $98 million last year for the arming and training of a special battalion, which essentially acts as a security guard for Occidentals corporate interests. The pipeline has been a target of guerrilla attacks. "

are they still doing this?!?
Obviously.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineREPLICON_TRON
there is nospoon
Registered: 09/16/02
Posts: 34
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #894775 - 09/19/02 11:07 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

If capitalism means making a profit...well then it is still around...otherwise  what ever system you are refering to is as outdated as the steam engine.......we just dont have an accurate vocabulary word for what has arrived ...."globalized inter- dependency..globilization....ahhhhh ptoowey.....something else is up...I can feel it every time I enter psilo-space.....did you see the movie enemy of the state...?.....?....?  what the hell is up with all that tech shit...Its like Tek..vs...tech... :confused:   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #898616 - 09/21/02 10:58 PM (21 years, 5 months ago)

"And how does he obtain tools, food, clothing, shelter, and transportation? With money. My question is, how much money does he have to have before he is considered rich? Enough to buy all the tools, food, clothing, shelter, and transportation he and his dependents will use in the next 24 hours? Or in the next 24 days? The next 24 months? The next 24 years? An approximate answer will do."

I don't know if there is any defining point. But I do think that every individual knows when he is being greedy.


"If he is not using them for any other purpose than making money, then he doesn't rightfully own it.

Does this hold true for all means of production, or only for housing? Note that a dwelling is not even a means of production."

landlordship is a form of usury, usury is making a living by any means other than labor. I believe that all forms of usury depend on the exploitation of laborers in order to make a profit and are therefore unethical.

"What is someone to do who doesn't have the skills and/or tools and materials to build their own home? Where are they to live?"

wherever they are living. I don't understand quite what you mean by this question. If you want to know how I propose to solve much of the homelessness in the US I think a good solution is squatting. Many homes are owned by the rockford housing authority that are just being run down because of nobody living there, yet because of property laws it is technically illegal to live there. Squatting solves both problems. Squatters usually turn shitty old run down dwellings into liveable homes while supplying people with a place to live.

"But the landlord DOES use it. He uses it to make a living by renting it to tenants who need a place to live. That same landlord may also own an office building. He rents the offices space to businesses who need an office. He may also own a warehouse. He rents it to businesses who need space in which to store their products. Etc."

Maybe the landlord should do what most people do. Work!!! It isn't right that he lives off of other peoples hard work just because he is fortunate enough to own property. He is freeloading.


"What do you do when no one is hiring? How do you keep yourself alive?"

family and friends. This is also freeloading but it is different. I take what is given and I recieve by asking. Usurers use the law to coerce people into letting them freeload off of their hard work.

The only exception to this would be stealing from usurers.

"If the laborer feels he is being exploited, why doesn't he simply obtain resources on his own, and produce goods himself, and fill in the hundreds of government forms required to prove his goods meet government regulations, and buy the required licenses, and pay the required taxes, then sell and deliver the goods himself, and thereby keep 100% of the sale price of the goods?"

This requires tremendous amounts of capital for the initial investment. Most laborers are struggling to pay the rent.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #902528 - 09/23/02 06:54 PM (21 years, 5 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

I don't know if there is any defining point. But I do think that every individual knows when he is being greedy.

So you don't know if there is any defining point at which someone is to be considered "rich"? Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.

landlordship is a form of usury, usury is making a living by any means other than labor.

Incorrect. From the Ocford Dictionary of Current English: "usury: lending of money at interest, esp. at exorbitant or illegal rate."

One does not have to be a landlord in order to practice usury, nor does the renting of structures constitute usury. The two have no connection whatsoever.

wherever they are living. I don't understand quite what you mean by this question.

I really don't know how to phrase it any more clearly. If no one was allowed to rent living space to others, exactly WHERE would all those people currently living in rental accomodations live? Would they pitch tents in public parks?

If you want to know how I propose to solve much of the homelessness in the US I think a good solution is squatting... etc., etc.

Apart from the fact that this "solution" is daft even for the existing homeless, imagine how many homeless there would be if the rental of living space were outlawed. Everyone currently living in every high rise, low-rise, duplex, triplex, walk-up and boarding house would be shit out of luck, wouldn't they? I suppose you are aware that the majority of people in the US rent... that less than 50% of the population OWN homes. I ask again... where will those hundreds of millions of people live if it becomes illegal to rent?

Maybe the landlord should do what most people do. Work!!! It isn't right that he lives off of other peoples hard work just because he is fortunate enough to own property. He is freeloading.

I owned a house in Canada that I rented out to others for a few years when I first moved to the Dominican Republic. No one gave me the house, dude. I worked hard for it. The father of a friend of mine worked damn hard all his life, but he didn't trust banks and inflation (which shows his intelligence) so rather than putting his savings in the bank, he bought a number of rowhouses, one at a time. Of course, he still had to work, since a large percentage of his tenants trashed the places, skipped out owing months and months of back rent, or simply refused to either pay the rent OR vacate. They just put down the first and last months' rent and refused to budge until a court order was finally issued. Even then they would ignore the eviction notice and had to literally be removed bodily by the police. Do you have any idea how hard it is to evict a tenant? And of course, once they finally are evicted, the landlord has to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours working to repair the place for the next tenant.

Even I had a few problems with my carefully selected, supposedly upstanding tenants. I personally would NEVER be a landlord, not because it is immoral, but because it's too much damn work and way too many headaches for too little return. Fuck it.

Usurers use the law to coerce people into letting them freeload off of their hard work.

Usurers lend money at interest. Not only do they not "coerce" anyone into accepting the loan, they turn down WAY more people than they accept. Ask anyone who has ever tried to get a business loan from a bank.

This requires tremendous amounts of capital for the initial investment.

Contrary to what you may believe, I wasn't describing Bethlehem Steel. I was describing what EVERY business owner must do... even most one-man businesses. If you want to build jet airliners or manufacture pharmaceuticals, then of course you need a tremendous amount of capital. If you want to sell hot dogs from a cart on the street, you need less capital.

Note that if you yourself don't have enough capital, there is nothing stopping you from getting a bunch of like-minded "exploited workers" together and starting your own business -- you don't have to go it alone.

Here's the deal -- if you feel you are being taken advantage of by a landlord, don't rent. Live in a box in an alley or pitch a tent in a public park or squat in an abandoned building. If you don't want to be exploited by some evil capitalist, don't work for one. Work for yourself or freeload off others. Makes no difference to me either way.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #1819323 - 08/16/03 07:20 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

bumped for Cornholio


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Dominican Republic
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Baby_Hitler 5,326 62 11/10/05 12:00 PM
by psiclops
* Quake in Dominican Republic shakta 501 2 09/23/03 08:11 AM
by shakta
* Conflict of Interest the Other Way Autonomous 694 2 03/22/05 01:27 PM
by JesusChrist
* US troops to 'protect oil interests' in Africa? Edame 827 1 07/11/03 12:55 PM
by Xlea321
* Israel vs. Iraq Biased, but interesting
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Buddha5254 14,106 133 11/08/02 11:01 AM
by Innvertigo
* Russia says to defend post-war Iraq oil interests
( 1 2 all )
pattern 2,963 22 03/28/03 02:31 PM
by grib
* It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. RonoS 2,478 12 09/27/02 12:03 AM
by downforpot
* Interesting (but long) article on electronic voting. luvdemshrooms 793 0 10/15/03 03:44 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,579 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.