what is your take on the situation in Genoa, Italy, and on the topic of globalization

[niv]

i was just listening to NPR news and i heard that the riots had gotten worse at the summit in Genoa (although some of the protestors were doing their thing quietly), and that a militant anarchist group whose origin is from Germany, had raided a post office, attacked some riot police, and had smashed down store windows. i don't see what they are fighting against. what's your take on this situation?

[Giancarlo]

They are fighting against the benefit of the people. I say they should be crushed in their pathetic rebellion. I support the Italian Police's use of force, most of Italy supports Captialism and Global Trade... so most of the protestors are from different countries. I say deploy more Police and the Army. They are trying to screw with the people's wish to get the best for themselves, and they won't succeed.

I am obviously a pro-Captialist.

[niv]

This is completely biased, but I'm thinking that they are selfish, and that they don't care about the future of this planet.

They are fighting against

1) A fund to help find a cure for AIDS (currently a billion dollars)
2) Trying to help third-world nations repay their debts
3) Stopping global warming


I mean come on, do they have a legitimate reason to protest?

[Giancarlo]

Look if we don't make the Global Economy become more efficent... Africa will go more down the tubes. This would mean free trade... which could be a lifesaver for some nations with a national deficit of 200% of the GDP. These Groups are protesting against this! What hypocracy.

They don't have any reason to protest nor should they, they should be applauding this. Their own ideas are completely hypocritical if they protest this.

[jason]

i am against globaliztion because in the end the only ppl who benifit are the already rich corporations. These corporations will abuse the free trade deal because they can expand their manufactoring of products to places that have no labour rights or enviromental laws. however the protesters are going about it all wrong. it looks like they came for a fight wearing gasmasks and constantly throwing things at the cops. but one protester was shot dead and i think thats going to far.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by jason
i am against globaliztion because in the end the only ppl who benifit are the already rich corporations. These corporations will abuse the free trade deal because they can expand their manufactoring of products to places that have no labour right or enviromental laws. however the protesters are going about it all wrong. it looks like they came for a fight wearing gasmasks and constantly throwing things at the cops. but once protester was shot dead and i think thats going to far.

I hate to break this to you, but globalization is the only way money can be distrubuted to the people. The Corporations will profit therefore rising the wages of the workers. Your understanding of captialism is quite incorrect. It is the only system that generates money for the people and without it you wouldn't be in your fancy middle class house. That is right, Captialism created the middle class.

[jason]

who says they will rise the wages if they don't have to? nike makes shoes in third world countries and profits from it but they haven't raised wages or bettered working enviroments. The only reason we have the wages we have today is because of unions, if it were up the coroporations we would be working 70 hour work weeks for 1.50 an hour.

[niv]

You are leaving out the government. Ever heard of Al Smith? He was governor of new york in the early 20th century and he fought for labor reform. He worked almost 20 hours every day to support his family. He rose in the ranks of Tamany Hall and became governor, and when the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire came around in 1911 (which killed over 150 people), he was the first to take a stand.

[Giancarlo]

The Practices of Corporations done in the 19th Century is over. Anyways these malpractices occured under State-Owned Corporations such as Communism. The money gets generated for the people and incomes go higher as more people work to get where they deserve to.

[niv]

All I'm saying is that some politicans do care for the welfare of the people.

[Giancarlo]

I think George W. Bush is one of them. You might put your head back and laugh.

[jason]

i may not know much about the ways of capitalism, though it seems to be the best system we've got it is far from perfect. it relies on the poor staying poor and the rich staying rich. if everyone was even middle class who would make the burgers at mcdonalds or pick up the trash from the street? and a small note about Geneva, over 100 000 protesters were out today. the ppl have spoken.

[Giancarlo]

The people aren't speaking, these groups are dumb Anarchists and Communists who hardly make the majority, they are the minority and come from several dozen different countries. These are groups of people who don't want the best for the nation. Captialism makes the Middle and Upper Class, whereas Communism makes everyone Poor. The majority of people in Western Nations support Captialism.

[niv]

these people are forgetting that globalization is now a part of life, and you can't do a damn thing about it, and it's not just in other countries than the United States, but the United States itself. the United States gains more and more cultural diversity as the days go by.

[Giancarlo]

And some of these people are pro-Communist and obviously forget how the conditions where towards the people in the USSR. Not good, you were the cattle of the state and you would get tortured to get tremendous jobs done, what I mean is you would work twenty hour shifts in a stinking factory. How is that for communism!

[Toefur]

what I mean is you would work twenty hour shifts in a stinking factory. How is that for communism

Ahhh, it's a good thing we brought the wonders of Capitalism to all those Nike and such workers :)

[Giancarlo]

Considering that they would make way less than what Nike Pays them it is a good thing... look, the pay may be pathetic compared to the US, I mean really little, but it is more than what they would be making. Captialism generates the middle class, communism does not... it only makes everyone poor.

[WorldWarGeneral]

Capitlialsim is great. Sure, there are poor. There are poor in any government system. In a capitalist society, people have the chance to better themselves and become wealthy. There will always be the poor and the destitute, but you can't hold back progress because it will hurt a small group of people. Globalization will bring stronger world economies - which means better living conditions for most people. Sure, there will be people who don't benefit, and some that will suffer, but most will do better. Perhaps full free trade will shine a light on the terrible working conditions in some factories. With free trade, maybe third-world countries won't have to rely so much on foreign aid, and will become inspired to develop their own industrial base and economy. With decent economies, governments will be more willing to introduce labor legislation in order to create a more productive work force. The betterment of the many has to take priority to the plight of the few.

[jason]

i am not for communism i am a for capitalism for the most part but what i have seen happen here is small town ontario since NAFTA out of 15 factories once in my town there are only 4 left. all closed down and moved to mexico or the U.S. what are the workers supposed to do? what i see globalization doing is making the entire world fair game so the factories can move to africa where there are no labour or enviromental laws so they can make their product cheaper and gain more profit, sure you make the arguement that eventually these rules will be put in place but how long will it take? 100 years like it did in northa america? i feel if this is going to happen all countries participating in this should have a minimum wage, labour, enviromental laws and ppl to overlook them put in place before hand.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by WorldWarGeneral
Capitlialsim is great. Sure, there are poor. There are poor in any government system. In a capitalist society, people have the chance to better themselves and become wealthy. There will always be the poor and the destitute, but you can't hold back progress because it will hurt a small group of people. Globalization will bring stronger world economies - which means better living conditions for most people. Sure, there will be people who don't benefit, and some that will suffer, but most will do better. Perhaps full free trade will shine a light on the terrible working conditions in some factories. With free trade, maybe third-world countries won't have to rely so much on foreign aid, and will become inspired to develop their own industrial base and economy. With decent economies, governments will be more willing to introduce labor legislation in order to create a more productive work force. The betterment of the many has to take priority to the plight of the few.

Very Nicely put.

In Communism/Socialism you remain poor. A good example of a working Captialist country is Chile with +6% some odd Gross Domestic Product Growth, and +12% Industrial Production Output Increases every year. The Chilean Economy is by far the most stable, and 60-70% of the Country is Middle or Upper Class, and this has been increasing in size in the past few years. Chile went from a Socialist Republic in 1973 where people would earn horse ----, to a Captialist Society where people are naming their children after American Companies... it's true. Chile has the most stable banking system in the world, surpassing Switzerland. Chile attracts massive amounts of foreign investment from Europe, America and Japan. This is still a fact despite the minor crisis in Argentina. Argentina is another grand example of captialism, sure there has been a crisis the past three years, but from 1991-1998, the Argentine Economy grew by an unprecendented +45%. They could get off their feet and act now. Chile and Argentina are examples where the Middle Class exceeds 45%.

Globalization will bring a new era of technological advances, for the people. Globalization is for, by, and designed for the best of the people. I feel the Countries could immediately get strinkingly high growth, that previously did not get any infact negativity, will enact new laws to prevent over-pollution, Jason. We are on a new era of technological break-through, and cannot restricted industry and commerce, or there will be no technological break-throughs. Bush is doing a fine job with America and the world.

Countries I see having high growth potential immediately

Argentina - GDP Per Captia - $10,000 - Growth: Negilible
Chile - GDP Per Captia - $13,500 - Growth: +6 - +7% Annually
Gabon (Africa) - GDP Per Captia - $6,000 - Growth: +10% - +15% Annually

Countries that could have high potential because of globalization

Zaire - GDP Per Captia - $100 - Growth: -15% (Plenty of Resources, and new President coming to peace with neighbors)
Kenya - GDP Per Captia - $1,200 - Growth: +1.5% (Great Tourist Potential, and Decent base for Industrial Growth)

I certainly did not name the all of the countries that could have high potential.

[Ted S]

Giancarlo - in the post your picture thread you complained about how people thought yo looked 14 instead of the 17 you are..... I'm beginning to see why they thought that...

I am all for globalization... hell, I'm a upper-middle class, maybe even lower-upper class white male living in America. However, globalization is not always good. When you try to bring every country in the world into the same market at once you crush many under developed countries.

You said that globalization would help most of Africa by bringing in more money, that’s simply not true. For the under-developed nations of Africa to benefit from globalization they must have products ready to sell globally, they must be ready to trade world wide, then and only when will globalization help them. But, as it stands Africa does not have these things and global forces simply put pressure onto them to adapt or die. This means millions of people are exploited even more simply to make a product, wars are fought, people are killed in massive numbers to get jobs as a part of this 'new world economy'.

For those of us In America, Europe and most of the developed world, trading globally means an expanded market place with more risks and more profit. For countries that can not feed their people, globalization means an expensive force which must be feed before their people. The more that is put into turning a country from a under-developed nation into a globalized market, the more the people are exploited, the more damage is done to the natural world and the less fit that nation is to be global. If tomorrow I told you had to give up all your ideas and become an average American living in downtown New York it would not work well, you would not adapt well, neither does Africa when someone tells its countries to play ball or get lost.

Globalization may very well be the key to our society’s future…. What it provides is far greater than what it takes but that does not mean that it comes without consequences or that it can be an instant, fast acting solution.

[Giancarlo]

Oh sorry now I am the idiot. I PROVIDED A WHOLE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF HOW IT REALLY WORKS. Read it again. I know Economics very well, so don't underestimate me there. You underestimated me in the drug-war, and you are doing it here. Everyone here always is after me.

[Giancarlo]

Captialism is defined by two well known features: The process of generating income for the people and allowing the commerical and industrial base of any country to develop to new heights. Globalization will spread captialism, and give more spending parities or per captia to the people of those countries it does spread to, therefore increasing purchasing power of those countries and finally developing a secure consumer base. The process would help all nations that are suffering from poverty, large deficits and internal social and economical strife. This process won't take days, or months but years and perhaps decades. This process will bring a new era of richness and increase the world average Spending Parity or Per Captia of $6,000 up to higher ranks. This amount could easily double or even triple if Globalization occurs. There will certainly be lower class however there will be a middle class in nations where there was previously none. The Nations that are positioned as developing or 3rd world countries could easily build a whole new base of economics, bringing these countries in the new century of efficency and a new wave of uprooting corruption. The people of these nations have just about had it with abuses done by the tyrannical dictators that have control of the nation, and who do nothing but let the situation spiral out of control. This old era, the old regime is over with, and a new efficent, non-corrupt base will be instated. The countries that suffer from tremendous poverty could lift themselves out of the valley of turmoil and onto the high ground of prosperity so that they can ensure their future as a nation. Globalization can accomplish these goals.

[Agum]

i think i missed something on the news =P can somebody post a URL to that news here?

[Giancarlo]

http://www.cnn.com - But you must realize the news is all on the liberal stand-point. The Media always has been like this.

[Todd]

Originally posted by jason
who says they will rise the wages if they don't have to? nike makes shoes in third world countries and profits from it but they haven't raised wages or bettered working enviroments. The only reason we have the wages we have today is because of unions, if it were up the coroporations we would be working 70 hour work weeks for 1.50 an hour.
It's called competition. If another competitor needs that employee's talent they'll offer them more money in order to secure that employee. There is also a minimum wage which usually helps those who didn't further themselves with more education or simply decided to choose a profession that didn't pay the best. Everything tends to balance out and I wouldn't say it's just because of unions. Unions really are only needed in businesses where employers are to greedy IMO.

[Ted S]

For someone who claims to know capitalism you must have missed Marx, Locke, Rousseau and basically every other political thinker that ever address capitalism.


Captialism is defined by two well known features: The process of generating income for the people and allowing the commerical and industrial base of any country to develop to new heights.

I hate to break itt o you but for the actual meaning of capitalism is nowhere near this.

From Webster --
Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
n End

Capitalism in its true and ideal state is a system with no government a system of perfect equality in which the market controls its self. There is no Bill Gates, no poor man Joe, no difference.

In its common form, capitalism is the idea that you can I can trade our goods with a lazzie-faire manner in which the government does very little to limit our trade. This trade says nothing about either of our income, our nations industry or anything of that nature – it is about individual rights.


The process would help all nations that are suffering from poverty, large deficits and internal social and economical strife. This process won't take days, or months but years and perhaps decades. This process will bring a new era of richness and increase the world average Spending Parity or Per Captia of $6,000 up to higher ranks. This amount could easily double or even triple if Globalization occurs. There will certainly be lower class however there will be a middle class in nations where there was previously none. The Nations that are positioned as developing or 3rd world countries could easily build a whole new base of economics, bringing these countries in the new century of efficency and a new wave of uprooting corruption.

For starters you are making a very common mistake… capitalism and globalism are not the same. You can have a global economy in which socialism is preformed, in which privatization is used, in which totalitarianism exists. Any economical system that currently applies to one country or one region can easily be applied to a global market. When we talk of globalism we ideally talk of the idea of a global capitalism market but this is rarely the truth Most people in our world do not live in a free world, do not know what capitalism is and have never heard of free trade.

This brings me to my next point… simply economic supply and demand. If we assume for arguments sake that all globalization is capitalist then for a country to survive in the global market they must have product. Nations who’s products are lower standards, nations who do not produce high volumes of product have nothing to offer the market. If you are a poor man working in the streets of San Francisco polishing shoes with two types of shoe polish and a few old rages and I own a booth with dozens of polishes, three workers and free coffee to my customers, you won’t get any business, or atleast not much. The same idea applies to a global economy – without something well priced, and well made to offer, you will get no business. Without business your product does nto sell and you make nothing, therefore your nation makes nothing while it has spet all it could to produce something no one buys.

In a third world country, making this something only happens when a company from the first rate nations comes to your nation and brings a product. Companies like Nike travel around the world and bring new products to small countries. In return for workers, they bring these countries a few more pennies. Now this is a good thing for many reasons – these people have the chance to make more money than they would have made if Nike did not come. However, compared to what Nike makes, they make nothing. Workers in third world countries do not make $6,000 US dollars a year, not even as a family. They make far less. Less is better than nothing but lets take out globalism and see what happens. Without a global market people in these poor countries have no Nike ti work for so instead they work for food, and shelter. Some people may build homes, others make clothing, others food. From there the idea of trade emerges since no one person can do it all on their own. With trade comes money and with money wealth. Now economically these people have less than with globlaism but they are stable – they have food, shelter and the other basic things needed to survive. When we introduce new forms of markets on people, we inflate the value of food and similar products. Economies that were driven off of basic work become driven off of falsified earnings, new text systems and uch more.

This idea in turn continues to the point that country tries to make its own product, be its own Nike. Now if the people of this nation have made enough from the companies in their nation, such as was the case throughout parts of India then they are able to adapt and start making a new product. However, most nation have very little money and very little for with which to make a product. Therefore they use their people to make a product. They under pay, under feed and over work their people. This does indeed create a middle class but the middle and lower class are miles away. In most first rate countries there is only a slight disparity between the bottom of the middle class and the top of the lower class. In poor nations the lower class is the exploited worker and the middle class is the factory manager or maybe even owner.



The people of these nations have just about had it with abuses done by the tyrannical dictators that have control of the nation, and who do nothing but let the situation spiral out of control. This old era, the old regime is over with, and a new efficient, non-corrupt base will be instated.

Right… out with the old, in with the new. However it isn’t out with the corrupt, in with the perfect. In politics people become corrupt to achieve several things, but mostly power and money. In economics it is exactly the same only worse. In politics you must beat down your rivals to become powerful, especially in a dictorial nation. In economics you must crush your competition. In a developing nation the people at the bottom are abused by the political leaders every day. When globalism comes along, nothing changes, except how that abuse occurs. The people at the top economically, the factory owners and managers work to make as large a profit as possible, it’s human nature, it’s greed. That means that the workers are exploited even more and this does nothing to remove corruption other than make it legal. For in an exploitive labor based system its legal to pay the workers almost nothing because no one else would anyways.


The countries that suffer from tremendous poverty could lift themselves out of the valley of turmoil and onto the high ground of prosperity so that they can ensure their future as a nation. Globalization can accomplish these goals.

What a profound, great sounding answer to all the world’s problems.. too bad its purely hypothetical. In truth globalism benefits the people who are ready for it. The people with power make more, the countries with product make even more and the people on the bottom whoa re just starting to make a grasp for higher levels get knocked down. How can nations over come hunger when they’re trying to make money for their leaders? How can a place with almost no natural resources make a product to sell internationally when they have nothing to make the product from. The answer is not simple…. Globalism made fit in somewhere but not now. Nations on the bottom need time to become stable on their own before they can play economical games, before they can start trading with giants like the US. Put this way, as intelligent as you are, as much as you want to succeed, if you enter into business trading and dealing with me and all my money, you go up against something you can’t always compete against and therefore you and the people under you suffer. But if you have a stable foundation then you can push against me, reject my offers, find other buyers and make a real stand. That is the true manner of globaliztion but not the manner, which most people pursue.

This argument only touches on a few minor points. It uses your assumption that all globalism is capitalism, it ignores the effect of globalization on wealthy nations and focuses on the poor because that is what this debate seems to be over.

Giancarlo – perhaps this is why everyone “attacks you” – its not because your ideas don’t have merit, I myself agree with many of the same principles you agree with, I like globalism, it certainly helps me. However, when you talk political, when you talk economically you can not rely only on your ideas to prove a point. You must reach out and look at the ideas of the world, look the ideas of the great thinkers and even if you challenge these ideas you are still using them.

[Giancarlo]

You must realize that I have knowledge in economics, and you must allow me to keep my points. You are throwing them out the window like they never existed, like they never had any value. Globalization usually occurs to Captialism, and when the industries and commerce spread to different countries globalisiation occurs. The promise that lays ahead for third world nations is, that their standards can be raised to a new height, which is compatiable with the ensured rights of freedom and prosperity that should be favored towards all men. You are misunderstanding on how the way captialism works, it is the process of making money through private ventures and enterpenuarship. All men deserve to be enriched in the riches of captialism, and the prizes it brings. Money can be focused towards the undeveloped countries of the world, this can help erase the past abuses done by the ancient and long extinct system of isolation. In the pursuit of these aims, the United States and other liked-minded nations find themselves directly opposed by regime of contrary aims and a totally different concept of life, that regime adheres to a false philosophy which supports to offer prosperity and security to man kind. Misled by that philosophy many people have sacrifed their route to prosperity. That false philosophy is the one being shouted out by the people that are protesting the meetings.

Look, I am tired of typing right now... and having every sentence I typed argued. Unfornately, you must realize my knowledge in economics is very substantial, yet not excellent but average. You also must let me have my freedom of thought instead of saying "No He is wrong, his ideas are all wrong".

[Todd]

Your post wasn't deleted and therefore your points are still there. If you disagree with how he responded a specific section of his post quote just that section and reply to it. Then go down the line and reply to anything questionable. He is allowed to completely disagree with your opinion and you are allowed to disagree with his but you should argue the issues like he did rather then simply saying don't disagree with me.

[Giancarlo]

The answer I provided is a general response to his post. No need to put everything in quotations. I am out of this argument, because I am always declared wrong even if I have very substantial amounts of education in this issue(s).

[Ted S]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Look, I am tired of typing right now... and having every sentence I typed argued. Unfornately, you must realize my knowledge in economics is very substantial, yet not excellent but average. You also must let me have my freedom of thought instead of saying "No He is wrong, his ideas are all wrong".

Thats how debates work... I attack what you say, bring in the ideas of others and form an arguemnt with it. I'd like it if you atcualyr esponded to my ideas but you don't and I continue to post.. debate isn't perfect, it's debate.

[Giancarlo]

What I provided was a general response to your post. First off, I hate your ideas and I think they are incorrect. There that is the condense version of your reply. Now leave me alone. You are not a good debater. Neither of us won this.

[Todd]

No one has declared you wrong, disagreements are bound to happen and that's what a debate is all about. I think I've covered this in the past as well. It's not a personal attack against you if he disagrees with your viewpoint. If your not willing to debate the topic and back up your posts with reasoning then you shouldn't start them as their unfounded. This is general advice and not directed just at you Giancarlo.

[Ted S]

You must realize that I have knowledge in economics, and you must allow me to keep my points. You are throwing them out the window like they never existed, like they never had any value.

I know you have ideas, I disagree with most of them, I know you have knowledge I’m just not seeing most of it….


Globalization usually occurs to Captialism, and when the industries and commerce spread to different countries globalisiation occurs.

The Islamic world is perhaps the fastest growing sect of the world and it has nothing to do with capitalism. Islamic countries follow a very traditional dictorial process. Men lead woman, god leads a few and a few lead the rest. That’s not capitalism but it’s globlism.


The promise that lays ahead for third world nations is, that their standards can be raised to a new height, which is compatiable with the ensured rights of freedom and prosperity that should be favored towards all men.

What about woman? :P

There no promises in globalim except increased trade. Globalism can mean more wealth, less wealth, more freedom less freedom. As you’ll see in my post I specifically addressed the aspect of corruption in globalism… the desire for the leaders to get more. Greed and freedom do not go hand and hand. A really liberal person would even argue that globalism is more restrictive because you loose your freedom simply to have a part in globalism.


You are misunderstanding on how the way captialism works, it is the process of making money through private ventures and enterpenuarship. All men deserve to be enriched in the riches of captialism, and the prizes it brings.

That’s exactly what I said… capitalism is private people making money. Pure capitalism is entire nations using economy to control their lives, to make them equal and make the world work. Capitalism is not globalism, nor is it industrialism or a process that removes corruption. Capitalism is simply free trade but we do not live in a world of capitalism. We live in a mixed-market economy… America is more socialist than capitalist as is most of Europe. We balance (or try to balance) the idea of giving our people services, regulating companies and monopolies while at the same time having an open market.


Money can be focused towards the undeveloped countries of the world, this can help erase the past abuses done by the ancient and long extinct system of isolation. That is certainly not capitalism… an open market doesn’t give anything to anyone, an open market doesn’t help anyone, an open market uses natural selection to weed out the weak, the under privileged, the poor. If you have a a true capitalist global system nations will be on their own to compete, there no giving money, no lending a hand. Every loan comes with the idea of making more off that loan than the person who receives it gets.


In the pursuit of these aims, the United States and other liked-minded nations find themselves directly opposed by regime of contrary aims and a totally different concept of life, that regime adheres to a false philosophy which supports to offer prosperity and security to man kind. Misled by that philosophy many people have sacrifed their route to prosperity. That false philosophy is the one being shouted out by the people that are protesting the meetings.

So basically you’re saying that the US’s globalized ideas is opposed by people who have a fake sense of life and liberty…. Or did me and all the people I had look at that get you wrong?

Let’s see if I can respond in just as convoluted a manner:

Because of purist system in which our economies pretend to exist the idea of societies are misdirected. In truth people describe to the ideas of systems that we do not admit to the existence of. Our world is not composed of one system or another but instead of the perpetual idea of combining the thoughts of all ideas. Even in America which stands against communism we use Marxism every day to make systems like healthcare and welfare. Yet at the same time our people seek to give an image of the idea system our world should take to become more America and more profitable.

On a final note, if you want to be seen as educated and respectable then respond to what I say. In our cazzzzzy world people understand quotes and responses to quotes, not to some short response with no referance to what the response is even too.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Todd
No one has declared you wrong, disagreements are bound to happen and that's what a debate is all about. I think I've covered this in the past as well. It's not a personal attack against you if he disagrees with your viewpoint. If your not willing to debate the topic and back up your posts with reasoning then you shouldn't start them as their unfounded. This is general advice and not directed just at you Giancarlo.

My Posts? Don't have reason? Maybe you should look into what I am educated in. And in this area I am educated. I am not a idiot in everything I debate, I go into debates with at least a shred of knowledge. For all I know I won this "debate".

[Giancarlo]

I won this debate for sure.


The Islamic world is perhaps the fastest growing sect of the world and it has nothing to do with capitalism. Islamic countries follow a very traditional dictorial process. Men lead woman, god leads a few and a few lead the rest. That’s not capitalism but it’s globlism.

What the heck does religion have to do with economics? Nothing, nada zippo.


That is certainly not capitalism… an open market doesn’t give anything to anyone, an open market doesn’t help anyone, an open market uses natural selection to weed out the weak, the under privileged, the poor. If you have a a true capitalist global system nations will be on their own to compete, there no giving money, no lending a hand. Every loan comes with the idea of making more off that loan than the person who receives it gets.

Have you ever heard of foreign investment? I guess not.


On a final note, if you want to be seen as educated and respectable then respond to what I say. In our cazzzzzy world people understand quotes and responses to quotes, not to some short response with no referance to what the response is even too.

Ugh! This is getting to be really pathetic, you keep on repeating yourself over and over again while I go onto to different areas.

[Ted S]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


My Posts? Don't have reason? Maybe you should look into what I am educated in. And in this area I am educated. I am not a idiot in everything I debate, I go into debates with at least a shred of knowledge. For all I know I won this "debate".

In theoritical debatesno one really wins or looses... its imposible... people cna make better points, people cna shut out ideas but you do not win a debate, you simply present your argument

as for what my posts said, i never said i hated your ideas, i fyou bothered to read what people said instead of assuming that the first sentance is the same as the second, third and 40th, then you'd have seen me state that i agreed with many of your ideas, see me talk about what a liberal's response was, not mine. the poitn of my arguement is not that you're always wrong but that i believe you are fialing to see the bigger picture, the way it is vs. the way we want to think it is

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ted Sindzinski


In theoritical debatesno one really wins or looses... its imposible... people cna make better points, people cna shut out ideas but you do not win a debate, you simply present your argument

as for what my posts said, i never said i hated your ideas, i fyou bothered to read what people said instead of assuming that the first sentance is the same as the second, third and 40th, then you'd have seen me state that i agreed with many of your ideas, see me talk about what a liberal's response was, not mine. the poitn of my arguement is not that you're always wrong but that i believe you are fialing to see the bigger picture, the way it is vs. the way we want to think it is

You attacked my age though... I will find it.
You played around with my ideas, saying things I never said and turning this argument up-side-down so makes no sense. I am no longer debating with you, and will avoid it in the future.

[Ted S]

I won this debate for sure. What are we now.... 3? I won... no I won.... no its me... this is a debate, not a eating contest



]What the heck does religion have to do with economics? Nothing, nada zippo./ ANythign that controls people's lives has to do with eocnomics. Religion tells people hwo to act, how to live, what is right and what is wrong. If traditional Judaism took the whole world over tommorow there would be no more pork butchers in the world, thats an economical change. When religion tells people how to work, how to spend their money, what is of value what is not that is economical. Religion has long been a way of changing the power and economy of the world... wars have been fought over religious power, religious fredom and religious IMPACT.


]Have you ever heard of foreign investment? I guess not. WHen I loan you a dollar, I get back a return, thatr eturn causes you to have to make more money to pay me back. That means you have to use my return not to help yourself but make money which means that in the end I am forcing you to use your moeny in a way that does not help your or youyr people but helps me.




[/B]Ugh! This is getting to be really pathetic, you keep on repeating yourself over and over again while I go onto to different areas. [/B]

ALl I know is that I spend 15 minutes writting 5 pages, you respond in 5 minutes with 5 sentances. I can read at about a rate of a page a minute which is considered fast, I cna type 120 words a minute which is very fast but I'm not sure how you cna fully read everything I say and respoind and be so sure that I've said nothing new.

Additionally, my last thread talked about religioin, my first about rich nations thats not the same....

[Giancarlo]

Giancarlo - in the post your picture thread you complained about how people thought yo looked 14 instead of the 17 you are..... I'm beginning to see why they thought that...

That is the attack you said. You are attacking someone who is younger than you. You are attacking someone who you think has no knowledge about anything. With I do respect, you are a sore loser...

[Giancarlo]

ALl I know is that I spend 15 minutes writting 5 pages, you respond in 5 minutes with 5 sentances. I can read at about a rate of a page a minute which is considered fast, I cna type 120 words a minute which is very fast but I'm not sure how you cna fully read everything I say and respoind and be so sure that I've said nothing new.

Additionally, my last thread talked about religioin, my first about rich nations thats not the same.... [/B]

There WE GO! ANOTHER ATTACK ABOUT HOW FAST I READ. I take my time. And when I start to grow white hair, then I stop reading. I can type at 145 WPM, but I have other things to do rather than this thread. I have to work on a website, fix this computer and other things. I don't have all the time in the world to argue with someone who can't even make his sentences coherent.

[Ted S]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


You attacked my age though... I will find it.
You played around with my ideas, saying things I never said and turning this argument up-side-down so makes no sense. I am no longer debating with you, and will avoid it in the future.

This is the Teradactal move... Look theres a Teradactal... Then he runs and hides from a real war of words.. He is just drawing your attenstion away from the point at hand... Old political move.

Debates are all about attacking each other. I commented on yoru age in my first thread stating that your inability to look at the impercial world makes me easily see why people quesiton your age.

I did nto insult your age, I myself am only a few years older. But I did state that because you provide almost no impercial evidence you appear weak, opinoated and not backed up by anything which is the argument of a young child.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ted Sindzinski


This is the Teradactal move... Look theres a Teradactal... Then he runs and hides from a real war of words.. He is just drawing your attenstion away from the point at hand... Old political move.

Debates are all about attacking each other. I commented on yoru age in my first thread stating that your inability to look at the impercial world makes me easily see why people quesiton your age.

I did nto insult your age, I myself am only a few years older. But I did state that because you provide almost no impercial evidence you appear weak, opinoated and not backed up by anything which is the argument of a young child.

MY OPINION IS NO WEAKER NOR STRONGER THAN YOUR'S. YOU PROVIDE ---- FOR EVIDENCE IN THESE PAST SIX RESPONSES AND HAVE PROVIDED ALMOST NOTHING IN THE WAY OF CONVINCING THEORY. ATTACKS ON PEOPLE'S AGE IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT A LOGICAL NOR SMART THING TO DO. MY OPINION IS BACKED UP WITH EVIDENCE THAT STATED ACCURATE FIGURES ABOUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND THEIR GDPs, GROWTH RATES AND OTHER COMPONENTS. IF YOU WANT TO ATTACK MY ABILITY TO MAKE A THREAD, I PREFER WE TAKE THIS TO ICQ. You my friend are unabled and completely lacking of evidence to even argue with. The figures I stated about several nation's GDPs and GDP Per Captia's is accurate if you look it up.

[Ted S]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


There WE GO! ANOTHER ATTACK ABOUT HOW FAST I READ. I take my time. And when I start to grow white hair, then I stop reading. I can type at 145 WPM, but I have other things to do rather than this thread. I have to work on a website, fix this computer and other things. I don't have all the time in the world to argue with someone who can't even make his sentences coherent.

This is turnhing into an immature argument over he said, she said but just to finish this point I'll show you a little something

Attacks are parts of debates... attacks are fine you just have to attack with facts and common knowladge

05:05 PM Ted Sindzinski posts 34 plus pages[/b] 15 minutes later a response of a few sentances is given. I am a political science student with years of study in this field and I have no doubt that if I write 4 pages, even using a page and a half of quotes, its 4 pages of unique, readable content. To repsond in 15 minutes with a few sentances, a paragraph at most, no quotes, no evidence means you are not reading everything I say and therefore cna not comment on everything I say nor know if I repeat myself or not.

[avery]

I have been reading this post from the beginning and it is very clear that Ted makes his points, and Giancarlo does not. This other person is just ranting about his education, when he/she isn't really that educated or we would have heard a least a DECENT agruement.

TED IS THE WINNER! Good work Ted..

Avery

[Giancarlo]

Ted Sindzinski posts 34 plus pages[/b] 15 minutes later a response of a few sentances is given.

None of which made any sense.

To repsond in 15 minutes with a few sentances, a paragraph at most, no quotes, no evidence means you are not reading everything I say and therefore cna not comment on everything I say nor know if I repeat myself or not.

Say what? You are starting to sound like Dan Quayle! Speak up and spit it out.

First off, you are a lousy debater who has no knowledge in economics and you can't even comprehend on how much I know.

[Ted S]

Ooh... he yelled at me in cpaitals.... age is a perfect valid thing to discus... a 50 yearold coming here could easily ell me I'm wrong based on their first hand knowladge and would have afar more creditbility that an kid tyoing in all capitals.

As my posts get shorter, I use less evidence but evidence does nto always come in the form of perfect stastical facts. Evidence is bringin in the dieas of Marx, bring up Nike's poilicy, the US system, the defenition of capitalm, mixed-market economies. Read the words and you'll read the evicence, ignore the words and you ignore the message.

p.s. you are not my friend, i am not your friend, it's a weak idea to push a thought

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by avery
I have been reading this post from the beginning and it is very clear that Ted makes his points, and Giancarlo does not. This other person is just ranting about his education, when he/she isn't really that educated or we would have heard a least a DECENT agruement.

TED IS THE WINNER! Good work Ted..

Avery

Ted won jack ----, he can't even back up his opinion with logical points. I had evidence on the first page backing up my claims of the nation's wealth and GDP Per Captias. I hereby declare no one won this. DECENT ARGUMENT?!?! I JUST TYPED UP SIXTY PARAGRAPHS EXPLAINING CAPTIALISM AND I GET KICKED AROUND BY SOMEONE WHO HAS LESSER KNOWLEDGE IN THIS AREA THAN I.

[Ted S]

Ok, I'm going back to work now... no use in arguiong with people who are so upset that they simply say the person they argue with is totally wrong

not everything i said makes sense but trust me, when you're an hoors politcial science student at a top level university, chances are 4 pages of your writting will make some sense

[avery]

If you go back 10-12 posts, Ted was the first one to bring up the fact you at that point, you didn't quote anything. Now your trying to use the same argument against him..

Do you actually know how to read? Or are you just cutting and pasting this arguement from somewhere..

We are all laughing at you this very moment.. LMAO

Avery

[Giancarlo]

Several of my posts:

Very Nicely put.

In Communism/Socialism you remain poor. A good example of a working Captialist country is Chile with +6% some odd Gross Domestic Product Growth, and +12% Industrial Production Output Increases every year. The Chilean Economy is by far the most stable, and 60-70% of the Country is Middle or Upper Class, and this has been increasing in size in the past few years. Chile went from a Socialist Republic in 1973 where people would earn horse ----, to a Captialist Society where people are naming their children after American Companies... it's true. Chile has the most stable banking system in the world, surpassing Switzerland. Chile attracts massive amounts of foreign investment from Europe, America and Japan. This is still a fact despite the minor crisis in Argentina. Argentina is another grand example of captialism, sure there has been a crisis the past three years, but from 1991-1998, the Argentine Economy grew by an unprecendented +45%. They could get off their feet and act now. Chile and Argentina are examples where the Middle Class exceeds 45%.

Globalization will bring a new era of technological advances, for the people. Globalization is for, by, and designed for the best of the people. I feel the Countries could immediately get strinkingly high growth, that previously did not get any infact negativity, will enact new laws to prevent over-pollution, Jason. We are on a new era of technological break-through, and cannot restricted industry and commerce, or there will be no technological break-throughs. Bush is doing a fine job with America and the world.

Countries I see having high growth potential immediately

Argentina - GDP Per Captia - $10,000 - Growth: Negilible
Chile - GDP Per Captia - $13,500 - Growth: +6 - +7% Annually
Gabon (Africa) - GDP Per Captia - $6,000 - Growth: +10% - +15% Annually

Countries that could have high potential because of globalization

Zaire - GDP Per Captia - $100 - Growth: -15% (Plenty of Resources, and new President coming to peace with neighbors)
Kenya - GDP Per Captia - $1,200 - Growth: +1.5% (Great Tourist Potential, and Decent base for Industrial Growth)

I certainly did not name the all of the countries that could have high potential.

Captialism is defined by two well known features: The process of generating income for the people and allowing the commerical and industrial base of any country to develop to new heights. Globalization will spread captialism, and give more spending parities or per captia to the people of those countries it does spread to, therefore increasing purchasing power of those countries and finally developing a secure consumer base. The process would help all nations that are suffering from poverty, large deficits and internal social and economical strife. This process won't take days, or months but years and perhaps decades. This process will bring a new era of richness and increase the world average Spending Parity or Per Captia of $6,000 up to higher ranks. This amount could easily double or even triple if Globalization occurs. There will certainly be lower class however there will be a middle class in nations where there was previously none. The Nations that are positioned as developing or 3rd world countries could easily build a whole new base of economics, bringing these countries in the new century of efficency and a new wave of uprooting corruption. The people of these nations have just about had it with abuses done by the tyrannical dictators that have control of the nation, and who do nothing but let the situation spiral out of control. This old era, the old regime is over with, and a new efficent, non-corrupt base will be instated. The countries that suffer from tremendous poverty could lift themselves out of the valley of turmoil and onto the high ground of prosperity so that they can ensure their future as a nation. Globalization can accomplish these goals.

You must realize that I have knowledge in economics, and you must allow me to keep my points. You are throwing them out the window like they never existed, like they never had any value. Globalization usually occurs to Captialism, and when the industries and commerce spread to different countries globalisiation occurs. The promise that lays ahead for third world nations is, that their standards can be raised to a new height, which is compatiable with the ensured rights of freedom and prosperity that should be favored towards all men. You are misunderstanding on how the way captialism works, it is the process of making money through private ventures and enterpenuarship. All men deserve to be enriched in the riches of captialism, and the prizes it brings. Money can be focused towards the undeveloped countries of the world, this can help erase the past abuses done by the ancient and long extinct system of isolation. In the pursuit of these aims, the United States and other liked-minded nations find themselves directly opposed by regime of contrary aims and a totally different concept of life, that regime adheres to a false philosophy which supports to offer prosperity and security to man kind. Misled by that philosophy many people have sacrifed their route to prosperity. That false philosophy is the one being shouted out by the people that are protesting the meetings.

Look, I am tired of typing right now... and having every sentence I typed argued. Unfornately, you must realize my knowledge in economics is very substantial, yet not excellent but average. You also must let me have my freedom of thought instead of saying "No He is wrong, his ideas are all wrong".

And I have still yet to receive a halfy decent response for any of them.... I know what I am talking about, yet he ignores all of which I have typed. I am taking AP Courses in Economics, Political Science and Military Warfare.

[avery]

Come on man, we know you can cut and paste like the best of them; but we want to hear words from you... NOT BOOKS that you steal from..

Avery

[Todd]

In the future please use the correct quoting syntax or else it can make it a real pain to read/scan.

Thanks, and remember to keep it civil or it will be locked. The debate has no public winners or losers but rather it is meant for others to hear both sides and make an educated opinion based on the facts presented. Therefore you shouldn't say Ted or Giancarlo won a debate but if you wish you are free to jump in and debate the issues. Again that is general advice and not directed at anyone specifically.

[Giancarlo]

Avery: UMMM, I TYPED ALL OF THAT. Todd, tell Ted not to attack people's ages... it just ain't logical.

[avery]

Why are you using an arguement that has already been proven wrong in enconomics... You can't compare the numbers you have from a capitialist government for GDNP, communists monitor their system in a different manner.

You are comparing apples to oranges and then declare victory.. This is what I mean by a Teradactal...

Learn your how to argue your own points don't use outdated material.

Avery

[Giancarlo]

My argument is right because I know. You don't. That is the key here.

You got nothing better to do? I don't plagarise, I type my own posts. Insulting me makes you look like a fool, if you want to continue this contact me on ICQ or PM, because I don't want a fight here. First off, what I am debating is with my piece of mind.

[Todd]

Please re-read the rules before anyone posts as I have just gone through and removed most of the attacks. Personal attacks are not allowed in any way, shape, or form so please do not post anything questionable or else you will be banned. Debate the issues and if you don't want to stick to the issues I'll remove your posts; simple as that. This applies to everyone reading this post and not just those who are posting.

Repeated again as people still aren't listening: Reply on the issues and the issues alone and if you can't do that then don't reply.

[jason]

i do not know that much about politics, i think the world would be better off without it but my last bit on globalization:
even if these countries were successful and ppl began to make money and create a middle class in africa, india or wherever, from an enviromental standpoint, it would mean death to planet earth. If everyone had 2 cars stuck in traffic on the africian expressway on the to work in Kenya. and if the factories even created 1/3 of the pollution the U.S. does we would be in trouble. not to mention the rainforests don't stand a chance when the only green ppl care about is dollar bills. I don't want to see the last bit of untouched land raped for sake of money. its a shame what has been done already.

[bigperm]

I bet everybody was wondering where I was during this big fight? Well... I was working for the man at a 3 star restuarant serving Guiness beer battered fish and chips for 13 bucks.

Any, Giancarlo, of course is wrong. When your only arguement in a debates is that you 'know about stuff', then you don't have a real arguement.

Capitalism is where private individuals own the means of production. That means that they own the factories. There are two classes of people in capitalism. The Bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production. These are the fat-cats who subscride to Forbes to see their name. Not only them, but anyone who some means of production, and employs somebody from the second class, the Proletariat. The Proletariat has no means of production of his own, and is forced to sell his wage labour to the Bourgeois so that he can survive.


There are poor in any government system

That is not true. Forget about any country that has tried communism. Let look at what communism, ideally... is. Communism is the government (actually, economic) system with no poor, no rich, no middle class, no top 20% or anything. It's a classless society. From everbody as to what they can give, and to everybody as to what they need. Capitalism uses the monry system to farm money out of the working class (proletarians)... and they have to because in capitalism the point is to turn a profit. In communism, the point is to sustain human autonomy and soliderity. Communism is quite simple... but a lot of people don't get it. Everybody works, everybody is equal and everything is free.

Now, the Communist track record is not good at all. That because many of the countries American's try to call communists are not communists at all. The reason for this is pure human nature. Somebody has to be making the descisions, and the kind of people who go for that type of thing are not those who care about the people... they are the ones who, in capitalism are paying third world citizens .70 a day to glue soles onto shoes. Therefore, it's not run efficiently, and turns into some kind of dictatorship, fascism at it's best. So instead of saying 'Look at Russia', why not get a real education in class war? Read the Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html).

Now... I have a test, much like that gay test. Who do you think should own the means of production? Corporations or the People? If you said the People... then you need to click on that link above and read up. If you said Corporations, you can go die somewhere for all I care.

[bigperm]

Here are two really good songs that deal with the issue.

The State Lottery -- By Propagandhi

Does it seem strange to you?
The confetti.
The balloons.
The mile-wide grins and the victory dance
to welcome in the heir
to a state of (utter and complete) disrepair?
Because it sure seems strange to me:
they're acting like they won the lottery!
I mean, shouldn't they feel terror at the task that lies ahead:
to feed and house the people that this system's left for dead. And could I have hit the nail much harder on the head?
It's profits before lives.
They are motivated by greed.
First they taught us to depend on their nation-states to mend
our tired minds, our broken bones, our bleeding limbs.
But now they've sold off all the splints
and contracted out the tourniquets
and if we jump through hoops
then we might just survive.
Is this what we deserve?
To scrub the palace floors?
To fight amongst ourselves?
As we scramble for the crumbs they spit out, frothing at the mouth
about the scapegoats that they've chosen for us.
With every racist pointed finger I can hear the goose-steps getting closer.
They no longer represent us so is it not our obligation to confront this tyranny?

More information can on this band can be found at http://www.punkbands.com/propagadhi
The mp3 for this song can be found Here (http://home.c2i.net/cjacobse/hrvoje/lottery.zip)/(1.73mb)

Then there is the awesome Crass song that is in my sig.

I know there is Love by Crass.

Do you think I was born in this wretched earth
for you to govern and kill?
In your stinking factories and offices
with your stupid systems and skills.

Do you think I've got nothing better to do than to
grovel in the ---- and the crap,
Asking for the bread and home that's mine
and waiting for a pat on the back?

You think I've got nothing better to do than
live in the lie that you give?
Learn the sweet morals, the lessons,
the games and praise god for the fact that I live?

You took me and made me a MAN by making me strong,
the power of this land.
You took a woman and taught her she's less,
A slave to the strong no more than a guest.

You taught me to love, find a mate and take
A woman to serve but your love is just rape.
You leave me my children to hold and distort,
to bind with your rules of normality till caught.

I give them food that you sell in the shops,
I'm told it has goodness when it's only the slops.
You've taken my health with your ----ty benevolence,
You've taken my dignity with your dole queue dependence.

You taught me to steal when I wanted to share,
to take for myself and not even care.
You've shifted my vision with oppressive authority,
the dreams and the hopes nearly fade to strangle me.

You gave me confusion until I had learnt to obey
all the orders and never get burnt.
I shout in the streets and you take my voice,
this sham of democracy leaves no choice.

You've taken my eyes 'til there's nothing to see
except abuse and destruction, no chance to be free.
You've taken my thinking, my means of survival,
thrust in my hand your gun and your bible.
You told me to kill for the lord up above,
you've given me hate when
I KNOW THERE IS LOVE.


Man I love that song.

[Ted S]

Very nice points bigperm even if I do disagree with some of them.

What many people fail to realize is that pure marxismand capitalism in their absolute, pure form are very similar (not that we have ever come close ot achieving either system).

Seriously htough, teh end goal of capitalism is a perfectly open market system in which the market controls is self. In this system there is no one in control, no one more powerful than anyone else, we are all equal, economically. In this system government is not needed since everyone has enough without help.

In pure marxism there are no corperations to control business, the people control business. No one leads anyone and all people are once again equal. Government doesnt exist, the people are the government.

Now I'm sure I stated that a bit wrong and I've only read a fraction of Marx's works but its still clear that in the end, you have two very very similar systems.

[niv]

If people have the ambition to do well, even if they may not have much to work with, they will succeed in captialistic society. Just take a look at Mike Bloomberg.

[bigperm]

Well... capitalism depends on the two classes I talked about. There must be someone doing the work, and someone else getting paid for it for capitalism to work. That is why Capitalism and Communism will never be the means to the same end. So they are not close at all. But you are correct in saying :
In pure marxism there are no corperations to control business, the people control business. No one leads anyone and all people are once again equal. Government doesnt exist, the people are the government. Reminds me of the Bad Religion song... ' You are the Government'

[bigperm]

Originally posted by needcgispace
If people have the ambition to do well, even if they may not have much to work with, they will succeed in captialistic society. Just take a look at Mike Bloomberg. That is so wrong... I can't beleive it. It's a pyramid system. For everyone at the top, there are countless million below that sustain the top spot by working for them, or buying their products. You honestly think that, in capitalism, everybody can succeed? Who is going to be the working class? That is such crap.

[Ted S]

Originally posted by bigperm
Well... capitalism depends on the two classes I talked about. There must be someone doing the work, and someone else getting paid for it for capitalism to work. That is why Capitalism and Communism will never be the means to the same end. So they are not close at all. But you are correct in saying : [quote]In pure marxism there are no corperations to control business, the people control business. No one leads anyone and all people are once again equal. Government doesnt exist, the people are the government. Reminds me of the Bad Religion song... ' You are the Government' [/B]

I'm talking in pure ideals but we know pure ideals do not and most likely can not exist.

As much as I love capitalism I can not help but see the point Marx tries to make. Like you said, someone must always be the worker, someone is always exploited and when you take the globally, its the third-world nations that fill this worker role. Even in American millions are exploited although most people do not realize it. Marx of course goes a step farther saying that everyone who works fo rosmeone else is exploited. In his day the middle class or bougiuse was very, very small and the poor very large.

I for one believe that human nature will never over come this and that there will always be a worker, an exploited person. Hopefully I'm wrong but until that day comes I'd rather be the one exploiting than be the exploited in any system.

[bigperm]

At least you're open. Some people are so stuck on their ideas that any logical debate/reasoning makes them tired of arguing.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by bigperm
I bet everybody was wondering where I was during this big fight? Well... I was working for the man at a 3 star restuarant serving Guiness beer battered fish and chips for 13 bucks.

Any, Giancarlo, of course is wrong. When your only arguement in a debates is that you 'know about stuff', then you don't have a real arguement.

Here we go again, inflated rhetoric that doesn't mean anything to anybody.


Capitalism is where private individuals own the means of production. That means that they own the factories. There are two classes of people in capitalism. The Bourgeois are the ones who own the means of production. These are the fat-cats who subscride to Forbes to see their name. Not only them, but anyone who some means of production, and employs somebody from the second class, the Proletariat. The Proletariat has no means of production of his own, and is forced to sell his wage labour to the Bourgeois so that he can survive.

NoNONO! In Captialism there are three classes. The Upper, Middle and Lower Class. The Upper Class make 1% of the Population, mainly the CEOs of Companies, while the Middle Class work for these companies and receive decent wages. The Lower Class are mainly the uneducated or unemployed class. Your idea of captialism is wrong, the Middle Class are the ones that make up the supply and demand.


That is not true. Forget about any country that has tried communism. Let look at what communism, ideally... is. Communism is the government (actually, economic) system with no poor, no rich, no middle class, no top 20% or anything. It's a classless society. From everbody as to what they can give, and to everybody as to what they need. Capitalism uses the monry system to farm money out of the working class (proletarians)... and they have to because in capitalism the point is to turn a profit. In communism, the point is to sustain human autonomy and soliderity. Communism is quite simple... but a lot of people don't get it. Everybody works, everybody is equal and everything is free.

Then it won't work. If everyone works then the State-Runned Industries would be plagued with inadequancy and the economy would go down. Look at Nicaragua, the Sandinistas were actually real communists, and the leader Ortega got everyone into work and the economy actually shrank in size. That is one of the few examples of a real communist system. The USSR wasn't, China certainly isn't, and Vietnam is just a dictatorship. Communism takes over people's life, and takes away private property.


Now, the Communist track record is not good at all. That because many of the countries American's try to call communists are not communists at all. The reason for this is pure human nature. Somebody has to be making the descisions, and the kind of people who go for that type of thing are not those who care about the people... they are the ones who, in capitalism are paying third world citizens .70 a day to glue soles onto shoes. Therefore, it's not run efficiently, and turns into some kind of dictatorship, fascism at it's best. So instead of saying 'Look at Russia', why not get a real education in class war? Read the Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html).

They weren't communists, but the Sandinistas in Nicaragua actually were. Great example.


Now... I have a test, much like that gay test. Who do you think should own the means of production? Corporations or the People? If you said the People... then you need to click on that link above and read up. If you said Corporations, you can go die somewhere for all I care.

The Corporations are owned by the people, because the Middle Class in Captialism does the most investment in the Stock Market. The Corporations of course. COMMUNISM SUCKS!

[lucifer]

I seem to have missed all this. Some good points Ted

I feel the issue of third world debt hasn't been raised which is one of the issues of protest. yes some of the G8 leaders are suggesting things but a total write off would be good.

many countries have huge debts often having little to show for them as the money was siphoned off by corrupt leaders or used unwisely at the behest of Western nations. Anyway they have these huge debts which prevent them improving themselves education/health etc and although we may give the some aid this is almost always much less than the debt repayments. eg long ago in 1985 Ethiopia was in famine millions starving but still exporting soya to the west for cattle feed - an old example but a true one. This still continues.

Globalisation is a way of rich counties continuing to keep the balance of power in their favour.

[bigperm]

You really don't know anything about economics do you? I dont even think there is anybody who think that there are ONLY three classes in capitalism. You either beleive in 9, 12 or 2 classes, depending on who you are listening to.

I wish I still had my sociology book... I would tell you who the 9 and 12 are. BUT, Marxists (Which, if you haven't guessed yet, I am one.) only beleive in 2 classes, the oppressors and the oppressed.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, so I will end with the DOA song 'Class War"

I want a war, between the rich and the poor. I wanna fight and know what I'm fighting for. in a class war, class war, class war, class war, class war, class war, class war. in new york and la, city halls are falling down. there's no escape, when a class war comes to town. in a class war, class war, class war, class war, class war, class war. if I'm told to kill, in beirut or salvador, there will be a class war, right here in america. in a class war, class war, class war, this war, that war, class war, last war

[Giancarlo]

Bigperm, you have zero knowledge on captialism. There are three parties... one the Upper Class who are the CEO's and Bosses, the middle class who are the lower level bosses and well-paid workers and the lower class who are generally the lesser-educated ones. The Majority in American society are Middle Class, and the Middle Class certainly does not support communism, nor will it ever. Even though, the USSR was not a real communist state, it gave a bad impression so that communism will never be used in the United States. You are obviously a very, very small minority that will never grow... as Ronald Reagan says "You have gone so far left, that you left the country and the PEOPLE."

[bigperm]

I have zero knowledge on capitalism? You are trying to tell me that the upper class, lower class, and middle class are all parties. Stop before you hurt yourself.

[LastActionHero]

I think socialism is the right way. In socialism the government ensures that all the people get what they rightly deserve. No discrimination is done based what class a person comes from. Get paid for how much you work. If somebody is unable to support himself for some reason the state steps in and ensures the welfare of the person.

[Giancarlo]

Bigperm, the Upper and Middle class mainly vote for the Republican Party, the lower class votes for the Democratic party.

Socialism is NOT the way to go, as it drains the resources of industry and commerce and will inturn increase unemployment. That is how things are.

[LastActionHero]

Socialism if implemented in the right way meaning efficient government policies, efficient distribution of resources and funds and low corruption is the way to go for the welfare of the people of the country.

[niv]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Bigperm, the Upper and Middle class mainly vote for the Republican Party, the lower class votes for the Democratic party.

Socialism is NOT the way to go, as it drains the resources of industry and commerce and will inturn increase unemployment. That is how things are.

the mid and lower middle class vote democratic, the upper middle class votes republican.

[Giancarlo]

I disagree, Socialism will not work. I am against it because I think it will drain the money of the economy. It does nothing for the welfare of the people.


the mid and lower middle class vote democratic, the upper middle class votes republican.

The Middle-Middle Class votes Republican, not Democratic.

[niv]

are you sure? :D

[LastActionHero]

Why do think it will drain away the economy?

[Giancarlo]

are you sure?

40% of the Registered Voters in this Country are Republican, 40% are Democratic... 20% are swing voters. (Not counting the Green Party, etc)

The 40% of the voters that are Republican are usually Middle and Upper Class. The 40% of voters that are Democratic are usually from the Lower Brackets, like the Lower Class and Lower-Middle Class.


Why do think it will drain away the economy?

It will drain money away from commerical activities by giving out things away for free at no charge, no money is made and no advancements are made.

[LastActionHero]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
It will drain money away from commerical activities by giving out things away for free at no charge, no money is made and no advancements are made.


Who ever said about giving away things for free. You get paid for what you worked. Only those people who can't support themselves (eg old age ppl, handicaps) will be supported by the government.

People are motivated because they know that someone is looking after them and they don't have to worry about anything going wrong because things run smoothly

[lucifer]

what's with all this class talk. I though the us was a classless society.

There is much more to politics than the republicans/democrats. I'd put them both in the right wing category anyhow.

Globalisation is about increasing corporate power over countries which I think is hard to defend as a positive thing for personal freedoms of individuals which I value much more than economics

[jason]

won't globalization but a lot of americans out of work? a lot of companies will move their factories over seas so they can make products cheaper and make a bigger profit putting 1000's of americans and canadians out of work.
yes it does give a lot more political power and influence to the big corporations especially if the WTO has their way.
there are also a lot of nations that don't want to be westernized, namely afganistan and middle east countries. i would expect increased terrorist attacks from extremists in those countries. not to mention a lot of the countries are far from civilized, whats called "honor killing" is still allowed to take place in many countries like india and the middle east. i don't see why we should help those ppl.
then theres the enviromental effect but enviromental awareness always takes a backseat to everything else because there is no money in it.
As these corporations grow worldwide we will be ushering in a New Feudalism, where the corporate leaders sit in their castles while the peasents work the fields. not literally but its not far from the truth.
as for worldwide health and aids asistance i have no problems with that. its something that needs to be done but worldwide free trade is something all together different.

[lucifer]

Originally posted by jason
not to mention a lot of the countries are far from civilized. This is all very subjective.

for example I would not consider the usa civilised. One reason for this is it's continued practice of executing it's citizens, a sign of a barbarian nation in my books.

I am against the homogenisation of the world we should value our differences. There is no one right way to live.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by jason
As these corporations grow worldwide we will be ushering in a New Feudalism, where the corporate leaders sit in their castles while the peasents work the fields. not literally but its not far from the truth.

No, this is captialism not feudalism. These new corporations will give money to the people. While Socialists lose power. Socialism is nothing but a system that drains away at the economy, by overtaxation and overexpenditure. The Middle Class in the US, which makes up 70-75% give or takes gets most money in the economy, and can afford luxuries.


Originally posted by LastACtionhero
You get paid for what you worked.

I don't think so. Socialism overtaxes everyone, so no one gets what they worked for.

Globalization is highly positive as it can lift willing-countries out of the gutter. Like Mozambique... which though has one of the highest economic growth rates in the world, can be pulled faster into the new era.

[bigperm]

These new corporations will give money to the people. Really? You know this for a fact? Of is this more of you 'supply-side' 'trickle down' crap? The fact is, they will not give money back to the people.

Your reasons for not liking socialism is baseless. We pay taxes to the Government. The Government uses those taxes to pay for government subsidies things like healthcare. We aren't getting something for nothing, and it's not a drain.

[lucifer]

I've just worked out what Counter-Intelligence means in gc's signature :D

[bigperm]

haha.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by bigperm
Really? You know this for a fact? Of is this more of you 'supply-side' 'trickle down' crap? The fact is, they will not give money back to the people.

Your reasons for not liking socialism is baseless. We pay taxes to the Government. The Government uses those taxes to pay for government subsidies things like healthcare. We aren't getting something for nothing, and it's not a drain.

Oh sorry your honor, it is like I can't hold a different opinion. THEY WILL GIVE THE MONEY BACK TO THE PEOPLE, THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS OWNED BY THE PEOPLE.

You reasons for not liking captialism are senseless and coldhearted. We should rely on private interests rather than the state, and if we rely on state then the money will go down the drain.

---- you, Lucifer.

[lucifer]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
---- you, Lucifer.

Peo, how come l-o-v-e is now censored ;)

[Giancarlo]

Is there a smily that can show more anger than this one...

:mad:

Because I am that much more ticked off.

[lucifer]

sure you weren't after the tongue one :p ;)

[Giancarlo]

I would never do such a thng with a little twirp like you... and you probably are ugly because you never show anybody any pictures of yourself. :mad: :mad:

[lucifer]

hey gc,

I thought we were friends (in that strange cyber way :rolleyes: )

I'm sorry if I annoyed you but I saw the potential for a cheap laugh and I went for it. I know it was a low and pathetic thing to do and I realise that I should have held back. but I am a weak willed individual who lives for the moment not thinking of the pain I am causing to those so dear to my heart ;)


peo. where is that heart smiley thing!! :mad:

[Giancarlo]

Friends? Ummm.... not that I know of.


of the pain I am causing to those so dear to my heart

"So Dear to my heart?"

I don't even want to ask...

[Todd]

The thread is going further off topic and everyone has said his or her piece. Thread locked.