Phaedrus,
Another naive question...how does UAE take care of national defense matters? Do they rely on outside help or are they equipped enough on their own? If it's the former, then can you really regard it as an independent society? I mean defense is not exactly the ideal thing to outsource for economic reasons, is it? It would seem to be rather a core activity to me.
Another naive question...how does UAE take care of national defense matters? Do they rely on outside help or are they equipped enough on their own? If it's the former, then can you really regard it as an independent society? I mean defense is not exactly the ideal thing to outsource for economic reasons, is it? It would seem to be rather a core activity to me.
This is all dumb. For me to hate personally the average man walking the streets of the Middle East makes as much sense as it does for that guy to hate me personally. The problems we have isn't the countries or 99% of their people, our problems are with that small slice called terrorists. The hate the average guy on the street has isn't hate, it is envy. Just as many of us have in many cases. Say you go to a bar and see some average looking guy with a hottie on his arm. A lot of guys say they "hate" that guy. Would they go up and get into a brawl with him? Probably not, but they sure are envious of what he has. That is all you see around the world. Don't make a mistake about this, as I keep saying most of the time people don't want to blow us or other rich countries up, they would rather have us offer them jobs. The few that seem willing to blow us up obviously don't have those sorts of frustrations, they got into the country and have plenty of money. What they have is truly hate.
I agree "hate" is too strong a word for what the first couple of posts wanted to say. Still, there is a lot of non-jealous anti-American sentiment from countries that have similar standards of living to the US (higher if you count things like cleanliness, crime rate, social programs etc.). The sentiment comes simply from a different way of looking at the world. These people don't hate American individuals for the most part. It is the regime they'd rather do away with.
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I never said capitalism was an ideology. I claimed that it is something that many Westerners accept (not believe in) without question.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My mistake. I hope you'll understand my reading into it given the context.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And your gravity/capitalism comparison is a bit of a stretch. First, capitalism requires the existence of human beings to exist. Gravity does not. Second, gravity has stood the test of time. Capitalism has not (nor has it failed.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True to an extent; however where most people fail in their understanding of capitalism is that it is not merely an ideology, but in fact an inherent trait of human nature. Substantially all human behaviour is capitalistic in nature -- i.e. driven by the profit motive and one's rational self-interest. A subsistence farmer is the simplest expression of capitalism, as he will literally die if he does not get back more than he puts into his efforts. Try talking to him about wealth redistribution.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Your well written prose above is itself based upon a mere 14 years of unfettered capitalism. Capitalism, like any economic theory, is a social science based on, obviously, society ... when capitalism such as that found in the UAE survives several generations and the peace still exists, perhaps then a correlation can be made. I think your assertions are premature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you for the compliment, and of course you have a point, but fourteen years of continuous (and increasing) prosperity in practically every aspect of the lives of the citizens of UAE from within the confines of an Islamic dictatorship is itself astounding, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it is capitalism that is to credit for that period of prosperity, even if it ends tomorrow morning.
posted by Darryl Parsons:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Very interesting read. I wonder what Osama Bin Laden thinks of the UAE. Does he see them as an ally or as a puppet regime sucking up to the west? I would assume the latter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Honestly, I have no idea. UAE has supported both bin Laden's allies the Taliban and his enemy Hussein (those who do not waste time rearranging history will recall that up until the Bush administration starting claiming that al-Qaeda and Hussein were in cahoots, that bin Laden explicitly considered Hussein the greatest non-Jewish evil in the Middle East.) So it would be difficult to guess.
posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So like gravity and air, you cant control it, charge anyone for it, and we all get an equal share of it..er....like...communism...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as I know, one cannot control capitalism itself, nor can one charge for it, so I guess you're right. Communism is an ideology, one which requires man to go against his nature in hopes that the sharing of finite resources with a potentially infinite demand pool will somehow be a benefit to him in the long run. While communistic endeavours can work on a small scale or over the very short term, because it is a zero-sum game the participants are basically playing a game of hot potato with the short match.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hey this doublespeak gobbleldygook is easy once you try it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please point out any examples of doublespeak and I will attempt to clarify.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And these capitalist diamonds that keep coming up, they're all pissant countries that exploit a loophole in the vast surrounding region.
Hong Kong: Sits next to China, and was a doorway for western stuff.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Need I remind you whose idea that was? And Hong Kong was an incredible place up until China took it back over. Look at its economy since 1997. Ironically, the eastern provinces of the mainland are now practically as laissez-faire in nature as Hong Kong ever was, which the government allows in order to generate profits to siphon off and prop up the western provinces, military etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Switzerland: Dodgy banking capital of Europe, land of the bearer bond bank account.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nonsense. Switzerland has been a bastion of peace and prosperity for going on 700 years, and unprecedented run amongst the warmõngering savages of Western Europe, such as your nation (see also "Harry Browne: Is War Really Necessary?".)
Also, Swiss banking privacy is all but a dead issue these days. While they are still better than the money-grubbing savages amongst which they exist, including your nation, it is nothing like it was even two decades ago, thanks in large part to the lovely political spin campaign put on by special interests in the U.S. and E.U. which relabeled illegal gold trade between the Nazis and America during WWII, which was facilitated by the Swiss, as "Swiss profiteering on the blood of the Jews."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
UAE: A haven for every rich islamic dude in the area who's desperate for a shag (not necesessarily with a girlie) and a sip of whisky (at $4 a shot in the 80's I may add).
And a good place for his dodgy bank account too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And? What's wrong with being rich, wanting to have sex with a girl (or guy, or one or more of each?) And where on earth do you get that Dubai or any other tax haven is a place for a "dodgy bank account" anyway? In the Cayman Islands, the fifth largest banking center in the world, it is more difficult paperwork-wise to open a bank account than it is in the States. The difference is that one's personal financial records are not an open book to anyone who wishes to see it, which is pretty much the case in the U.S. and U.K. and most other non "tax haven" nations.
This analysis of the UAE's banking sector does not exactly paint a picture of Wild West Bank and Trust. They even have a legal regime for the dumbass make-believe crime of money laundering, so everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise just like in most other developed countries -- so rest easy.
posted by Darryl Parsons:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... how does UAE take care of national defense matters? Do they rely on outside help or are they equipped enough on their own? If it's the former, then can you really regard it as an independent society? I mean defense is not exactly the ideal thing to outsource for economic reasons, is it? It would seem to be rather a core activity to me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Accoding to The CIA World Factbook UAE has an Army, Navy (including Marines and Coast Guard), Air Force, Air Defense, paramilitary forces (includes Federal Police Force) and spends 3.10% of their GDP on military (ranking #51 in the world, just below the United States) -- see here and here.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I never said capitalism was an ideology. I claimed that it is something that many Westerners accept (not believe in) without question.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My mistake. I hope you'll understand my reading into it given the context.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And your gravity/capitalism comparison is a bit of a stretch. First, capitalism requires the existence of human beings to exist. Gravity does not. Second, gravity has stood the test of time. Capitalism has not (nor has it failed.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True to an extent; however where most people fail in their understanding of capitalism is that it is not merely an ideology, but in fact an inherent trait of human nature. Substantially all human behaviour is capitalistic in nature -- i.e. driven by the profit motive and one's rational self-interest. A subsistence farmer is the simplest expression of capitalism, as he will literally die if he does not get back more than he puts into his efforts. Try talking to him about wealth redistribution.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Your well written prose above is itself based upon a mere 14 years of unfettered capitalism. Capitalism, like any economic theory, is a social science based on, obviously, society ... when capitalism such as that found in the UAE survives several generations and the peace still exists, perhaps then a correlation can be made. I think your assertions are premature. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you for the compliment, and of course you have a point, but fourteen years of continuous (and increasing) prosperity in practically every aspect of the lives of the citizens of UAE from within the confines of an Islamic dictatorship is itself astounding, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it is capitalism that is to credit for that period of prosperity, even if it ends tomorrow morning.
posted by Darryl Parsons:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Very interesting read. I wonder what Osama Bin Laden thinks of the UAE. Does he see them as an ally or as a puppet regime sucking up to the west? I would assume the latter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Honestly, I have no idea. UAE has supported both bin Laden's allies the Taliban and his enemy Hussein (those who do not waste time rearranging history will recall that up until the Bush administration starting claiming that al-Qaeda and Hussein were in cahoots, that bin Laden explicitly considered Hussein the greatest non-Jewish evil in the Middle East.) So it would be difficult to guess.
posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So like gravity and air, you cant control it, charge anyone for it, and we all get an equal share of it..er....like...communism...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as I know, one cannot control capitalism itself, nor can one charge for it, so I guess you're right. Communism is an ideology, one which requires man to go against his nature in hopes that the sharing of finite resources with a potentially infinite demand pool will somehow be a benefit to him in the long run. While communistic endeavours can work on a small scale or over the very short term, because it is a zero-sum game the participants are basically playing a game of hot potato with the short match.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hey this doublespeak gobbleldygook is easy once you try it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please point out any examples of doublespeak and I will attempt to clarify.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And these capitalist diamonds that keep coming up, they're all pissant countries that exploit a loophole in the vast surrounding region.
Hong Kong: Sits next to China, and was a doorway for western stuff.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Need I remind you whose idea that was? And Hong Kong was an incredible place up until China took it back over. Look at its economy since 1997. Ironically, the eastern provinces of the mainland are now practically as laissez-faire in nature as Hong Kong ever was, which the government allows in order to generate profits to siphon off and prop up the western provinces, military etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Switzerland: Dodgy banking capital of Europe, land of the bearer bond bank account.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nonsense. Switzerland has been a bastion of peace and prosperity for going on 700 years, and unprecedented run amongst the warmõngering savages of Western Europe, such as your nation (see also "Harry Browne: Is War Really Necessary?".)
Also, Swiss banking privacy is all but a dead issue these days. While they are still better than the money-grubbing savages amongst which they exist, including your nation, it is nothing like it was even two decades ago, thanks in large part to the lovely political spin campaign put on by special interests in the U.S. and E.U. which relabeled illegal gold trade between the Nazis and America during WWII, which was facilitated by the Swiss, as "Swiss profiteering on the blood of the Jews."
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
UAE: A haven for every rich islamic dude in the area who's desperate for a shag (not necesessarily with a girlie) and a sip of whisky (at $4 a shot in the 80's I may add).
And a good place for his dodgy bank account too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And? What's wrong with being rich, wanting to have sex with a girl (or guy, or one or more of each?) And where on earth do you get that Dubai or any other tax haven is a place for a "dodgy bank account" anyway? In the Cayman Islands, the fifth largest banking center in the world, it is more difficult paperwork-wise to open a bank account than it is in the States. The difference is that one's personal financial records are not an open book to anyone who wishes to see it, which is pretty much the case in the U.S. and U.K. and most other non "tax haven" nations.
This analysis of the UAE's banking sector does not exactly paint a picture of Wild West Bank and Trust. They even have a legal regime for the dumbass make-believe crime of money laundering, so everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise just like in most other developed countries -- so rest easy.
posted by Darryl Parsons:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... how does UAE take care of national defense matters? Do they rely on outside help or are they equipped enough on their own? If it's the former, then can you really regard it as an independent society? I mean defense is not exactly the ideal thing to outsource for economic reasons, is it? It would seem to be rather a core activity to me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Accoding to The CIA World Factbook UAE has an Army, Navy (including Marines and Coast Guard), Air Force, Air Defense, paramilitary forces (includes Federal Police Force) and spends 3.10% of their GDP on military (ranking #51 in the world, just below the United States) -- see here and here.
Phaedrus
Wildbill, I know a Pakistani who owns a foodmart here in Miami (go figure) - after 9/11 I asked him, "What do the average people of Pakistan think of America, I don't mean the radicals, just the general Joe?", his response to me was that every person in Pakistan passionately despises America - this guy is from Pakistan and he is a real nice guy - extends credit to everyone and such, always joking around, etc.
That's why I laugh when the Bush adminstration makes it seem like a real small minority of the population in Iraq are the ones causing us all the problems - America is hated in the Arab world - I personally could care less what the animals of the Arab world think but I really don't like the way Bush has isolated us from the entire world - it's like the people (not necessarily government) of every country hate the US and I blame that on Bush.
That's why I laugh when the Bush adminstration makes it seem like a real small minority of the population in Iraq are the ones causing us all the problems - America is hated in the Arab world - I personally could care less what the animals of the Arab world think but I really don't like the way Bush has isolated us from the entire world - it's like the people (not necessarily government) of every country hate the US and I blame that on Bush.
I guess one Pakistani guy in Florida sums up the whole situation. It is funny to blame Bush for everything........the long list of terrorist acts before Bush was even thought of. Yes ...they hate .....they envy. It is bred into them from very young to look at us (Westerns) as infidels. They don't like us around their land, they don't like the way our women are free and wear whatever they want. Some of the stupid ass people in here thinking Bush caused all of this. Yes, they hate Bush now ....even more because he drew the line and stood up to them. This has been going on along time and will continue to do so. Turning our head or retreating will not help us ......we need to crush this now. It was going to happen at some point .....might as well take care of it now. If we sit around ....guess what ...things in DC, Chicago, Miami, St Louis, LA, Las Vegas etc.....will happen and it will affect YOUR family and maybe then some of the people would wake up. This is a religious war ..they hate Jews and Christians.
I wish some of you peace lovers would take a fruit basket into a neighborhood in Fallujah and see what would happen to you ----"the infidel".
I wish some of you peace lovers would take a fruit basket into a neighborhood in Fallujah and see what would happen to you ----"the infidel".
Phaedrus:
What was the state of the UAE prior to its decision to drill in 1972? Also, is it safe to say, that for the time being at least (while the oil still pumps, presuming that it is the foundation upon which capitalism can flourish) we can safely assume that the vast majority fall into the category of the "haves" ... it is when a sharp division between the "haves" and the "have-nots" becomes clear that capitalism is stifled in favour of socialist programs.
Also, I would like to know, for the sake of understanding your position, in your Utopian Laissez-Faire society, what, if any, state-sponsored programs would still exist? Further, exactly where do you propose that they generate the revenue to fund these programs?
What was the state of the UAE prior to its decision to drill in 1972? Also, is it safe to say, that for the time being at least (while the oil still pumps, presuming that it is the foundation upon which capitalism can flourish) we can safely assume that the vast majority fall into the category of the "haves" ... it is when a sharp division between the "haves" and the "have-nots" becomes clear that capitalism is stifled in favour of socialist programs.
Also, I would like to know, for the sake of understanding your position, in your Utopian Laissez-Faire society, what, if any, state-sponsored programs would still exist? Further, exactly where do you propose that they generate the revenue to fund these programs?
XP,
I was thinking of asking very similar questions. I spent a few hours today thinking about what Hungary would be like (ignoring international influences initially) if the government all of a sudden somehow sold everything it controls to the private sector and basically ceased to exist, thus making pure unbridled capitalism the order of the day.
Probably the first thing that would happen is that the existing mafias would declare themselves in charge of the territory they already control, only now instead of the limited scope of activities they operate in like money laundering, drugs, counterfeiting, loan sharking, prostitution and extortion, they would announce that they are in charge of everything. Those who currently hold positions of power in the government would likely join whichever mafia they feel best represents their interests. Since they probably will have stolen a good deal of government property they will be quite rich and will therefore occupy high positions in the mafia, after negotiations with the current bosses of course. After the internal power struggle is sorted out there would probably be a war between the various mafias until one emerged victorious. Then this mafia would set up its own government according to the principles it believes in and given the current mentalities in Hungary it would probably look like National Socialism a la Hitler after a few years.
Of course this all assumes that the USA and other countries just stand by and watch as all this happens. And this is, of course, completely out of the question not just in Hungary but in any country in the world with half an economy.
Still I would be interested in Phaedrus' answers to XP's questions and what he sees as the major necessary prerequisites to make the world (or the western world or even just the USA) move in the direction of pure capitalism.
I was thinking of asking very similar questions. I spent a few hours today thinking about what Hungary would be like (ignoring international influences initially) if the government all of a sudden somehow sold everything it controls to the private sector and basically ceased to exist, thus making pure unbridled capitalism the order of the day.
Probably the first thing that would happen is that the existing mafias would declare themselves in charge of the territory they already control, only now instead of the limited scope of activities they operate in like money laundering, drugs, counterfeiting, loan sharking, prostitution and extortion, they would announce that they are in charge of everything. Those who currently hold positions of power in the government would likely join whichever mafia they feel best represents their interests. Since they probably will have stolen a good deal of government property they will be quite rich and will therefore occupy high positions in the mafia, after negotiations with the current bosses of course. After the internal power struggle is sorted out there would probably be a war between the various mafias until one emerged victorious. Then this mafia would set up its own government according to the principles it believes in and given the current mentalities in Hungary it would probably look like National Socialism a la Hitler after a few years.
Of course this all assumes that the USA and other countries just stand by and watch as all this happens. And this is, of course, completely out of the question not just in Hungary but in any country in the world with half an economy.
Still I would be interested in Phaedrus' answers to XP's questions and what he sees as the major necessary prerequisites to make the world (or the western world or even just the USA) move in the direction of pure capitalism.
El Diablo, I am well aware that one person is not necessarily the opinion of all - I too think the Arabs are taught to hate us and this is long standing and has little to do with Bush though he magnifies it - I blame Bush for getting the entire world to hate us - I blame Bush for all of Europe hating us - I blame Bush for the National Anthem being booed - for Mexico chanting "Usama" at US soccer games - we could have the entire world backing us in a war on terrorism and now we are basically alone because of Bush and this $hit in Iraq that has ZERO to do with 9/11 - we were safer with Saddam because he would crush every religious nut that popped his head up - now we have host of them ready to take over.
Good comments by WildBill and also Seymour just above.
"Hate" is only possible when one begins to separate themselves from others.
If we instead view all other human beings as our literal brothers and sisters, it becomes more difficult to hate.
Yes, many many people outside the U.S. have been taught that Americans are lower than themselves...in effect, a lower species, thus worthy of hate. Most such teaching is reliqious based, ala the radical sects of Islam.
Meanwhile, here in the U.S. similar lessons have been taught over the past 200 years about other cultures being 'savage' and 'backward', thus lower than ourselves and therefore possible to hate.
All of the above is founded in ignorance of course and can be corrected by education and exposure to other cultures. The cyber revolution of the past decade has helped a lot.
Now Americans who have never left their home state can routinely communicate with people in other countries and cultures. As familiarity and education grows, the chance for hate diminishes.
BUT, for the first time in American history since likely back in the 19th century, we have a leader who proclaims himself being 'led by The Almighty'. He makes citations and claims that are supported in large part by his belief that he (and those who share his type of faith) is a superior being to those in other countries.
Therefore, any action he undertakes while wearing this holy mantle can be justified. After all, in such a case, if you disagree with GWBush, then you are in effect disagreeing with God.
People from other countries see this audacious display and roll their eyes. Further, if the actions of such a reliqious zealot appear to threaten the homes and lives of their people, they are likely inclined to resist and to fight against such sanctimony.
It's likely a lot less about 'hate' or 'envy' as it is simply about self preservation.
"Hate" is only possible when one begins to separate themselves from others.
If we instead view all other human beings as our literal brothers and sisters, it becomes more difficult to hate.
Yes, many many people outside the U.S. have been taught that Americans are lower than themselves...in effect, a lower species, thus worthy of hate. Most such teaching is reliqious based, ala the radical sects of Islam.
Meanwhile, here in the U.S. similar lessons have been taught over the past 200 years about other cultures being 'savage' and 'backward', thus lower than ourselves and therefore possible to hate.
All of the above is founded in ignorance of course and can be corrected by education and exposure to other cultures. The cyber revolution of the past decade has helped a lot.
Now Americans who have never left their home state can routinely communicate with people in other countries and cultures. As familiarity and education grows, the chance for hate diminishes.
BUT, for the first time in American history since likely back in the 19th century, we have a leader who proclaims himself being 'led by The Almighty'. He makes citations and claims that are supported in large part by his belief that he (and those who share his type of faith) is a superior being to those in other countries.
Therefore, any action he undertakes while wearing this holy mantle can be justified. After all, in such a case, if you disagree with GWBush, then you are in effect disagreeing with God.
People from other countries see this audacious display and roll their eyes. Further, if the actions of such a reliqious zealot appear to threaten the homes and lives of their people, they are likely inclined to resist and to fight against such sanctimony.
It's likely a lot less about 'hate' or 'envy' as it is simply about self preservation.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by el diablo:
I guess one Pakistani guy in Florida sums up the whole situation. It is funny to blame Bush for everything........the long list of terrorist acts before Bush was even thought of. Yes ...they hate .....they envy. It is bred into them from very young to look at us (Westerns) as infidels. They don't like us around their land, they don't like the way our women are free and wear whatever they want. Some of the stupid ass people in here thinking Bush caused all of this. Yes, they hate Bush now ....even more because he drew the line and stood up to them. This has been going on along time and will continue to do so. Turning our head or retreating will not help us ......we need to crush this now. It was going to happen at some point .....might as well take care of it now. If we sit around ....guess what ...things in DC, Chicago, Miami, St Louis, LA, Las Vegas etc.....will happen and it will affect YOUR family and maybe then some of the people would wake up. This is a religious war ..they hate Jews and Christians.
I wish some of you peace lovers would take a fruit basket into a neighborhood in Fallujah and see what would happen to you ----"the infidel".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I like the way you think.
I guess one Pakistani guy in Florida sums up the whole situation. It is funny to blame Bush for everything........the long list of terrorist acts before Bush was even thought of. Yes ...they hate .....they envy. It is bred into them from very young to look at us (Westerns) as infidels. They don't like us around their land, they don't like the way our women are free and wear whatever they want. Some of the stupid ass people in here thinking Bush caused all of this. Yes, they hate Bush now ....even more because he drew the line and stood up to them. This has been going on along time and will continue to do so. Turning our head or retreating will not help us ......we need to crush this now. It was going to happen at some point .....might as well take care of it now. If we sit around ....guess what ...things in DC, Chicago, Miami, St Louis, LA, Las Vegas etc.....will happen and it will affect YOUR family and maybe then some of the people would wake up. This is a religious war ..they hate Jews and Christians.
I wish some of you peace lovers would take a fruit basket into a neighborhood in Fallujah and see what would happen to you ----"the infidel".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I like the way you think.
Geez - some confused Islamic wannabe martyr flies a Jet into a building, or straps on a bomb and blows himself and a busload of schoolkids up - and I'm not supposed to hate him or the culture that created him? I guess I'm not that strong - because I truly believe that these neanderthals are one step above snakes on the evolutionary scale and should be treated like the poisonous vipers that they are.
My take on this is "kill them ALL before they get me or one of mine"
My take on this is "kill them ALL before they get me or one of mine"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bblight:
Geez - some confused Islamic wannabe martyr flies a Jet into a building, or straps on a bomb and blows himself and a busload of schoolkids up - and I'm not supposed to hate him or the culture that created him?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's correct. We are expected to look at these people on a case-by-case basis, give them the benefit of the doubt and not make generalizations while they are running around saying "Kill all Americans!"
Geez - some confused Islamic wannabe martyr flies a Jet into a building, or straps on a bomb and blows himself and a busload of schoolkids up - and I'm not supposed to hate him or the culture that created him?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's correct. We are expected to look at these people on a case-by-case basis, give them the benefit of the doubt and not make generalizations while they are running around saying "Kill all Americans!"
Hate is too strong a word, but personally I do not have too much use for their world - in fact that's why I believe it's so important to stress energy conversation and alternative fuel sources.
I was over in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in Gulf War I. Their food sucks, their music sucks, the desert sucks and is full of flies, the weather sucks, their religion is total bullshvt and any society that condones dressing your women in veils from head to toe and wiping their asses with their left hand, I got no use for, never mind sacrificing American youth for their supposed liberation and freedom.
I always had a problem with the fact that we could go and shed blood on Kuwaiti soil to protect Kuwaitis and Saudis but god forbid we should glance at their women, that would offend their society. (Not that anyone would want to look at those hags anyway).
Respectfully,
Your resident liberal,
Mudbone
I was over in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in Gulf War I. Their food sucks, their music sucks, the desert sucks and is full of flies, the weather sucks, their religion is total bullshvt and any society that condones dressing your women in veils from head to toe and wiping their asses with their left hand, I got no use for, never mind sacrificing American youth for their supposed liberation and freedom.
I always had a problem with the fact that we could go and shed blood on Kuwaiti soil to protect Kuwaitis and Saudis but god forbid we should glance at their women, that would offend their society. (Not that anyone would want to look at those hags anyway).
Respectfully,
Your resident liberal,
Mudbone
American, I knew you would like it.
I will never understand some people's thinking about war and what we need to do. I do know that most people don't like to see or think about what happens in war. It breaks my heart to think about a family that gets "that" knock at their front door.
Wake up people, we have to protect ourselves and take care of problems before they get worse. I know it is hard for some to think about 9/11 and translate that to Iraq. Some people want to say there is no connection between the two. ......I say ok ...maybe not, who cares .....Iraq had to be defeated and freed. Saddam wanted to strike us anyway he could. Yes, he was not very successful...but are we supposed to wait around until he does. He had chemical and biological weapons, he had missiles that violated UN restrictions, he beat, raped, and killed his own people. He had a bad track record, wealth to be dangerous, and a hate for Americans. Ask yourself ..one question .....If someone could promise and deliver a WMD to be set off in an America city would Saddam want to do it ?? ..I know some people will say Saddam finally figured it out and wanted to sit back in his palaces and live the lavish life. Well, he liked that but he had the will and would have eventually found a way. We didn't give him the chance.
How can you rationalize with people that are willing to blow themselves up to harm innocent women and children .....their own people. I know that there are some good people in Iraq that want to be free and alot of radical crazy people still causing havoc over there. I want you to think about this ....We are one of the only countries (if not the only) in history to care about civilian deaths that we sacrifice our own to do so. We could of wiped out Vietnam with great ease (not talking about nukes either).....we could do the same in Iraq. We could bomb the place into submission where nothing was standing and killing millions and then chase down the few scumbags left.
I know that people have different opinions and that is what this great country is all about. I know that if I saw something out of line or if we didn't try to protect our country I would try everything I could do to change it. This is a different time and era, we are not isolated from the world anymore. We have been hit on our home land and need to squash every real threat that we encounter. If being alittle cautious means that we strike alittle early ....so be it......better them than us.
I will never understand some people's thinking about war and what we need to do. I do know that most people don't like to see or think about what happens in war. It breaks my heart to think about a family that gets "that" knock at their front door.
Wake up people, we have to protect ourselves and take care of problems before they get worse. I know it is hard for some to think about 9/11 and translate that to Iraq. Some people want to say there is no connection between the two. ......I say ok ...maybe not, who cares .....Iraq had to be defeated and freed. Saddam wanted to strike us anyway he could. Yes, he was not very successful...but are we supposed to wait around until he does. He had chemical and biological weapons, he had missiles that violated UN restrictions, he beat, raped, and killed his own people. He had a bad track record, wealth to be dangerous, and a hate for Americans. Ask yourself ..one question .....If someone could promise and deliver a WMD to be set off in an America city would Saddam want to do it ?? ..I know some people will say Saddam finally figured it out and wanted to sit back in his palaces and live the lavish life. Well, he liked that but he had the will and would have eventually found a way. We didn't give him the chance.
How can you rationalize with people that are willing to blow themselves up to harm innocent women and children .....their own people. I know that there are some good people in Iraq that want to be free and alot of radical crazy people still causing havoc over there. I want you to think about this ....We are one of the only countries (if not the only) in history to care about civilian deaths that we sacrifice our own to do so. We could of wiped out Vietnam with great ease (not talking about nukes either).....we could do the same in Iraq. We could bomb the place into submission where nothing was standing and killing millions and then chase down the few scumbags left.
I know that people have different opinions and that is what this great country is all about. I know that if I saw something out of line or if we didn't try to protect our country I would try everything I could do to change it. This is a different time and era, we are not isolated from the world anymore. We have been hit on our home land and need to squash every real threat that we encounter. If being alittle cautious means that we strike alittle early ....so be it......better them than us.
posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What was the state of the UAE prior to its decision to drill in 1972?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oil made a big difference of course. The specific emirate of Dubai has been a major trade hub in the Middle East for something like one hundred years, despite British colonialism nearly driving it to ruin in the mid-20th century.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, is it safe to say, that for the time being at least (while the oil still pumps, presuming that it is the foundation upon which capitalism can flourish) we can safely assume that the vast majority fall into the category of the "haves" ... it is when a sharp division between the "haves" and the "have-nots" becomes clear that capitalism is stifled in favour of socialist programs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
UAE still gets a good amount of money from oil, but the significance of oil to the private and public sector has been steadily declining since the early 1980's, and with increasing rapidity since Maktoum came to power. Like nearly all other Muslim nations, there is a welfare structure in place which is funded by oil. Since the UAE produces well under their capacity and is estimated to have 100 years' worth of reserves at current consumption it is likely that the demand for the UAE's oil will run out long before the oil does -- but regardless of which happens first the net result will be the same (eventually what money they do get from oil will no longer be coming in, and they'll have to put on their big girl panties and deal with it.)
The gap between "haves" and "have nots" is a lot more narrow than it used to be, despite propaganda to the contrary. The poorest people in America live like European royalty of a century ago, better than they did really, as far as what they have available to them in the way of food, shelter, medical care, etc. Despite a century of socialism, communism and fascism sucking the life out of the world, the benefits of the very limited form of free trade that has been allowed here and there are astounding. I just don't see it as being a problem for the UAE, because what causes the real gaps between "haves" and "have nots" has nothing to do with the market and everything to do with statism and tyranny. No sensible person would deny that most of sub-Saharan Africa is a hellhole of poverty and squalor, but far from being a symptom of the universal hobgoblin known as "globalisation" most of this vast territory has been under the thumb of various imperialists and statists for decades and even centuries. From 1870 on, the nation now known as Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire, previously Belgian Congo, and so on) was terrorised by the Egyptians, the Belgians, and a succession of corrupt dictators (including the notorious Mobutu Sese Seko, the role model for most of modern Africa's rulers) which finally culminated in an outright sociopath so far out there that he made Jim Jones look like a Boy Scout troop leader and was assassinated (allegedly by neighbouring Rwanda [not exactly a nice place for studying African history itself] as a move of pre-emptive self-defence.) Today the aforementioned sociopath's son is nominally in charge, but the nation's civil war has never really ended and is not likely to do so any time soon.
It wasn't Wal-Mart or some outsourcing consultant firm in Atlanta that fúcked this place up. It was people believing that they'd be better off with a white guy in charge, or a black guy in charge, or a guy on whom they voted, or a guy who was strong enough to seize power. It was a century and a quarter worth of central Africans looking to someone else to solve their problems, despite being let down in most cases and outright betrayed and brutalised in others over and over again. Americans do this every two years when they elect their Congressmen, it just isn't quite as ugly.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, I would like to know, for the sake of understanding your position, in your Utopian Laissez-Faire society, what, if any, state-sponsored programs would still exist?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In a perfectly laissez-faire society, there would be no state apparatus at all. However, only statists have the luxury of being able to indulge in Utopian fantasies, so I am well aware of and at relative peace with the fact that such a world will never come around absent some sort of global social meltdown a lá The Postman (which would most likely be caused by ... say it with me ... governments ...)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Further, exactly where do you propose that they generate the revenue to fund these programs?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
James Ostrowski wrote an excellent piece three years ago called "A $ 21 Trillion Tax Cut" that suggests a system of voluntary taxation, which would work very well -- on the assumption that the state would somehow remain in check as far as spending goes. I believe that Ostrowski's system could be put into practice, although I disagree with his optimistically low figures and feel it would probably end up being more expensive than he thinks (but still less expensive by a very wide margin than the current tax-and-spend system.)
posted by Darryl Parsons:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I was thinking of asking very similar questions. I spent a few hours today thinking about what Hungary would be like (ignoring international influences initially) if the government all of a sudden somehow sold everything it controls to the private sector and basically ceased to exist, thus making pure unbridled capitalism the order of the day.
Probably the first thing that would happen is that the existing mafias would declare themselves in charge of the territory they already control, only now instead of the limited scope of activities they operate in like money laundering, drugs, counterfeiting, loan sharking, prostitution and extortion, they would announce that they are in charge of everything. Those who currently hold positions of power in the government would likely join whichever mafia they feel best represents their interests. Since they probably will have stolen a good deal of government property they will be quite rich and will therefore occupy high positions in the mafia, after negotiations with the current bosses of course. After the internal power struggle is sorted out there would probably be a war between the various mafias until one emerged victorious. Then this mafia would set up its own government according to the principles it believes in and given the current mentalities in Hungary it would probably look like National Socialism a la Hitler after a few years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds pretty shitty, but frankly it sounds like what you're saying is that nothing would change; they'd just start being honest about what they're already doing and have been trying to do.
However, I will point out that it is difficult to imagine that Hungary sold everything to the private sector, yet bureaucrats managed to seize up enough wealth to go into collusion with the gangsters and all that. On the other hand, Russia seems to have done just about that same thing, so I guess it could happen.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Of course this all assumes that the USA and other countries just stand by and watch as all this happens. And this is, of course, completely out of the question not just in Hungary but in any country in the world with half an economy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The US and other countries have a very hard time with figuring out what should be left alone and what should be intervened in. I wouldn't bank on such "assistance" happening, and I wouldn't bank on it helping if it did happen.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Still I would be interested in Phaedrus' answers to XP's questions and what he sees as the major necessary prerequisites to make the world (or the western world or even just the USA) move in the direction of pure capitalism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Honestly, I know that it's an almost Malthusian point of view but I think that about the only thing that would cause a wide-scale rise in true laissez-faire capitalism in any significant part of the world would be madness and chaos on the order of the more acid-trip sections of the Bible. The worst things get, the more people are apt to turn to the state to solve the problems -- even problems which the state itself caused. If that doesn't work, get rid of the existing rulers and replace them with new rulers to do the exact same thing, but maybe it will work this time around. It's what people do. Most people have an almost innate need to be led and told what to do, much to the detriment of those of us who don't, and much to the delight of those who wish to do the leading and telling (and if Jaynes was right, perhaps it's even part of the intrinsic psychological makeup of man, which means that we're all pretty well screwed.) So, things will just continue to get worse and people will continue to make it worse by attempting to do the same things over and over again to solve the problem.
In their book The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age Davidson and Rees-Mogg put forth a scenario that is palpatably realistic and very likely to be a close approximation of the next fifty years or so of human history. I believe that the sort of social breakdown envisioned in the book is probably a neccessary prerequisite to any sort of meaningful wide-scale application of laissez-faire capitalist society, not because capitalism itself requires it, but because statism is not likely to die a peaceful death despite having long since outlived its usefulness.
Mind you, I don't look forward to such a thing, hope that Davidson and Rees-Mogg are wrong, and am not sure that it would be worth it just to have a free world, given that I'm pretty free now relative to most other people. But you asked what I think would be a prerequisite to a capitalist society, and as far as broad strokes go, I'm guessing Armageddon.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
What was the state of the UAE prior to its decision to drill in 1972?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oil made a big difference of course. The specific emirate of Dubai has been a major trade hub in the Middle East for something like one hundred years, despite British colonialism nearly driving it to ruin in the mid-20th century.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, is it safe to say, that for the time being at least (while the oil still pumps, presuming that it is the foundation upon which capitalism can flourish) we can safely assume that the vast majority fall into the category of the "haves" ... it is when a sharp division between the "haves" and the "have-nots" becomes clear that capitalism is stifled in favour of socialist programs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
UAE still gets a good amount of money from oil, but the significance of oil to the private and public sector has been steadily declining since the early 1980's, and with increasing rapidity since Maktoum came to power. Like nearly all other Muslim nations, there is a welfare structure in place which is funded by oil. Since the UAE produces well under their capacity and is estimated to have 100 years' worth of reserves at current consumption it is likely that the demand for the UAE's oil will run out long before the oil does -- but regardless of which happens first the net result will be the same (eventually what money they do get from oil will no longer be coming in, and they'll have to put on their big girl panties and deal with it.)
The gap between "haves" and "have nots" is a lot more narrow than it used to be, despite propaganda to the contrary. The poorest people in America live like European royalty of a century ago, better than they did really, as far as what they have available to them in the way of food, shelter, medical care, etc. Despite a century of socialism, communism and fascism sucking the life out of the world, the benefits of the very limited form of free trade that has been allowed here and there are astounding. I just don't see it as being a problem for the UAE, because what causes the real gaps between "haves" and "have nots" has nothing to do with the market and everything to do with statism and tyranny. No sensible person would deny that most of sub-Saharan Africa is a hellhole of poverty and squalor, but far from being a symptom of the universal hobgoblin known as "globalisation" most of this vast territory has been under the thumb of various imperialists and statists for decades and even centuries. From 1870 on, the nation now known as Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire, previously Belgian Congo, and so on) was terrorised by the Egyptians, the Belgians, and a succession of corrupt dictators (including the notorious Mobutu Sese Seko, the role model for most of modern Africa's rulers) which finally culminated in an outright sociopath so far out there that he made Jim Jones look like a Boy Scout troop leader and was assassinated (allegedly by neighbouring Rwanda [not exactly a nice place for studying African history itself] as a move of pre-emptive self-defence.) Today the aforementioned sociopath's son is nominally in charge, but the nation's civil war has never really ended and is not likely to do so any time soon.
It wasn't Wal-Mart or some outsourcing consultant firm in Atlanta that fúcked this place up. It was people believing that they'd be better off with a white guy in charge, or a black guy in charge, or a guy on whom they voted, or a guy who was strong enough to seize power. It was a century and a quarter worth of central Africans looking to someone else to solve their problems, despite being let down in most cases and outright betrayed and brutalised in others over and over again. Americans do this every two years when they elect their Congressmen, it just isn't quite as ugly.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also, I would like to know, for the sake of understanding your position, in your Utopian Laissez-Faire society, what, if any, state-sponsored programs would still exist?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In a perfectly laissez-faire society, there would be no state apparatus at all. However, only statists have the luxury of being able to indulge in Utopian fantasies, so I am well aware of and at relative peace with the fact that such a world will never come around absent some sort of global social meltdown a lá The Postman (which would most likely be caused by ... say it with me ... governments ...)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Further, exactly where do you propose that they generate the revenue to fund these programs?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
James Ostrowski wrote an excellent piece three years ago called "A $ 21 Trillion Tax Cut" that suggests a system of voluntary taxation, which would work very well -- on the assumption that the state would somehow remain in check as far as spending goes. I believe that Ostrowski's system could be put into practice, although I disagree with his optimistically low figures and feel it would probably end up being more expensive than he thinks (but still less expensive by a very wide margin than the current tax-and-spend system.)
posted by Darryl Parsons:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I was thinking of asking very similar questions. I spent a few hours today thinking about what Hungary would be like (ignoring international influences initially) if the government all of a sudden somehow sold everything it controls to the private sector and basically ceased to exist, thus making pure unbridled capitalism the order of the day.
Probably the first thing that would happen is that the existing mafias would declare themselves in charge of the territory they already control, only now instead of the limited scope of activities they operate in like money laundering, drugs, counterfeiting, loan sharking, prostitution and extortion, they would announce that they are in charge of everything. Those who currently hold positions of power in the government would likely join whichever mafia they feel best represents their interests. Since they probably will have stolen a good deal of government property they will be quite rich and will therefore occupy high positions in the mafia, after negotiations with the current bosses of course. After the internal power struggle is sorted out there would probably be a war between the various mafias until one emerged victorious. Then this mafia would set up its own government according to the principles it believes in and given the current mentalities in Hungary it would probably look like National Socialism a la Hitler after a few years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds pretty shitty, but frankly it sounds like what you're saying is that nothing would change; they'd just start being honest about what they're already doing and have been trying to do.
However, I will point out that it is difficult to imagine that Hungary sold everything to the private sector, yet bureaucrats managed to seize up enough wealth to go into collusion with the gangsters and all that. On the other hand, Russia seems to have done just about that same thing, so I guess it could happen.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Of course this all assumes that the USA and other countries just stand by and watch as all this happens. And this is, of course, completely out of the question not just in Hungary but in any country in the world with half an economy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The US and other countries have a very hard time with figuring out what should be left alone and what should be intervened in. I wouldn't bank on such "assistance" happening, and I wouldn't bank on it helping if it did happen.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Still I would be interested in Phaedrus' answers to XP's questions and what he sees as the major necessary prerequisites to make the world (or the western world or even just the USA) move in the direction of pure capitalism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Honestly, I know that it's an almost Malthusian point of view but I think that about the only thing that would cause a wide-scale rise in true laissez-faire capitalism in any significant part of the world would be madness and chaos on the order of the more acid-trip sections of the Bible. The worst things get, the more people are apt to turn to the state to solve the problems -- even problems which the state itself caused. If that doesn't work, get rid of the existing rulers and replace them with new rulers to do the exact same thing, but maybe it will work this time around. It's what people do. Most people have an almost innate need to be led and told what to do, much to the detriment of those of us who don't, and much to the delight of those who wish to do the leading and telling (and if Jaynes was right, perhaps it's even part of the intrinsic psychological makeup of man, which means that we're all pretty well screwed.) So, things will just continue to get worse and people will continue to make it worse by attempting to do the same things over and over again to solve the problem.
In their book The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age Davidson and Rees-Mogg put forth a scenario that is palpatably realistic and very likely to be a close approximation of the next fifty years or so of human history. I believe that the sort of social breakdown envisioned in the book is probably a neccessary prerequisite to any sort of meaningful wide-scale application of laissez-faire capitalist society, not because capitalism itself requires it, but because statism is not likely to die a peaceful death despite having long since outlived its usefulness.
Mind you, I don't look forward to such a thing, hope that Davidson and Rees-Mogg are wrong, and am not sure that it would be worth it just to have a free world, given that I'm pretty free now relative to most other people. But you asked what I think would be a prerequisite to a capitalist society, and as far as broad strokes go, I'm guessing Armageddon.
Phaedrus
