Streets of Baghdad safer than America

[Gilding the Lily]

For you, I and the rest of the sheeple are here to be fleeced by the ruling capitalist elite and their politician whores.

It is a good thing that most of the "conspiracy websites" that you visit - - and likely blog - - daily do not charge you to surf. Otherwise, you would have been fleeced out of more than just your time and energy. You would rather entertain (and believe it as fact) a complex, ludicrous, nearly impossible scenario rather than accept the simple explanation that is. But hey, I am sure that you have met these 6 old, white, male Skull-and-Bones members that rule our universe (yes, I am aware that it is a bit of an exaggeration).

Honestly though, if you can clearly articulate a specific "theory" of yours and it turns out to be true, I will gladly put a shoe in my mouth and lend credence to your other "theories."

 

[El Che]

It is a good thing that most of the "conspiracy websites" that you visit - - and likely blog - - daily do not charge you to surf. Otherwise, you would have been fleeced out of more than your time and energy. You would rather entertain (and believe it as fact) a complex, ludicrous, nearly impossible scenario rather than accept the simple explanation that is. But hey, I am sure that you have met these 6 old, white, male Skull-and-Bones members that rule our universe (yes, I am aware that it is a bit of an exaggeration).

Honestly though, if you can clearly articulate a specific "theory" of yours and it turns out to be true, I will gladly put a shoe in my mouth and lend credence to your other "theories."

OK, I'll bite and humor you. Maybe you will learn something.
As any conspiracy theorist knows, 15 members are inducted into Skull and Bones each year. So its probably 15 old men who rule the world, not 6.
Please tell me what you find to be a conspiracy theory?
That the U.S. government is run by a bunch of criminals? (I am not just Bush bashing. I find the Clintons
and the rest of the aparatchik equally contemptible.)
That U.S. foreign policy is dictated by the capitalists?
That the Democrats and the Republicans are controlled by corporate America?
That so called "free market" is really monopolistic in nature, and nothing but a get rich quick scheme for a select few?
Lets take a look at the "free market" scam. We have to go back to in Chile in the 1950's (thats a country in South America, not a pepper, and no where near Mexico). Milton Friedman and his Chicago School boys needed a place to put Friedman's free market theories into practice. With financing from the Ford foundation they offered Economics scholarships to the Chicago school of business. First they approached the University of Santiago (Santiago, capital of Chile) for collaboration in the program. The University of Santiago refused because by sending Chilean students to Chicago, they would have no say in their indoctrination. Later they were able to establish an economics program at the Catholic University of Santiago where the original " Los Chicago boys" trained economists indoctrinated Chilean college students in "free market" economics. The three tenets of "free market" economics are: Privatization of state owned companies (water, electric, phones,oil, mines, etc.) deregulation and reduction in social spending. All this "free marketing" brings down any trade and tariff protections, brings reduction in wages, repeal of minimum wage laws, busting of trade unions, removal of price controls, loss of government and private pensions, unemployment and increases food and utilities prices. In spite of this great effort to bring the "free market" to Chile, the Chilean people would not fall for it. In 1970 they elected Salvador Allende to the presidency. He was...hide the children!...a socialist. He began to implement more social programs and land reform to help his country. That was the straw that broke the cammel's back. The Tricky Dick Nixon administration (Kissinger was a key player) set the ball rolling for a more U.S. corporate friendly government. Chile was now ripe for the "free market." reform. In 1973 the murderer Augosto Pinochet, with the aid of the CIA led a military coup and took over Chile. He immediately rounded up disidents, wether they be communists, union leaders, professors or economists, journalists, who did not see the "free market" light. These thousands of persons were murdered and/or disappeared (Remember the movie Missing?) When the free market policies were adopted, natuarally unemployment, homelessnes, increase in food and utilities prices ensued.
Milton Friedman advised and encouraged the murderer Pinochet through the tough times, when the poor general saw that these "free market" reforms were not working as advertized. Eventually Chile did recover. Of course the free marketeers call it "the miracle of Chile." They take credit for its financial succes. The truth is that the murderer Pinochet did do one thing right. He refused to privatize Chile's copper mines (Chile supplies 20% of the world's copper). He later began to reimplement some of the socialist policies of Salvador Allende.
Chile was the laboratory of Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys. These policies were later carried out by military juntas in Uruguay and Argentina, and eventually Asia, Africa and Russia with the same results. The people get screwed and the elite increase their wealth and power. When the people revolt, the get the added "free market" benefits of being kidnapped, tortured, murdered and or disappeared. Of course not all "free market" reforms are brought about by military force. In other countries like Bolivia the reforms are brought into play through secretive wheeling and dealing by sell out politicians. Another trick is to use natural disasters, wars or economic threats real or immagined to implement "free market" reforms, while the people are distracted by other things. The truth is that the "free market" cannot be brought into play in the light of day.When the people see that they will have to sacrifice their livelyhoods and the well being of their families, so that the rich can get richer...their aversion to it is a no brainer.
Of course here in the U.S., the brainwashed sheeple are so preoccupied by status symbols, sports and gossip that they are clueless to the fact that their country has been stolen from them in front of their noses; in the name of the "free market," of course.
Most of the industrial base, the real might,... the might that won WW2, and proppelled its people to economic wealth and independance...that REAL MIGHT is gone! All the financial speculation and Walmart jobs pale in comparrison to the once great might of U.S. industry.

 

[local 12 proud]

I should not bother to answer your simplistic jingoistic rhetoric, but I cannot resist.
Which America do you claim that I hate?
You somehow think that the foreign (and domestic) policy carried out by your government is in your best interest?
How has the invasion of Iraq benefited you? Last time I checked oil was over $115/bbl.
Your dollar is being devalued more and more each day. That plus inflation (which is more than the 4% the government says) reduces your buying power each day.
The Federal Reserve (that private bank owned by European banking interests) finds millions of dollars to bail out the Wall Street gang. I suppose that is in your best interest too?
I will go back to Cuba..as you suggest..the day you quit AA.
If you don't like the TWU at AA why don't YOU quit? You can get a a non union job at a right to work state like TX, OK or LA.
Right to work...another capitalist ploy to defraud labor...and you defend THIS?

Simplistic? perhaps...

Suffering as a Depressed Paranoid Schizophrenic Maniac like you?....Hardly so "Cabron Che"

Like I said If you know of a country that would better suit your needs and desires then by all means ....Tear Your Socialista Arse and speak out against those communist governments you so admire!

 

[Gilding the Lily]

OK, I'll bite and humor you.
Lets take a look at the "free market" scam. We have to go back to in Chile in the 1950's (thats a country in South America, not a pepper, and no where near Mexico). Milton Friedman and his Chicago School boys needed a place to put Friedman's free market theories into practice. With financing from the Ford foundation they offered Economics scholarships to the Chicago school of business. First they approached the University of Santiago (Santiago, capital of Chile) for collaboration in the program. The University of Santiago refused because by sending Chilean students to Chicago, they would have no say in their indoctrination. Later they were able to establish an economics program at the Catholic University of Santiago where the original " Los Chicago boys" trained economists indoctrinated Chilean college students in "free market" economics. The three tenets of "free market" economics are: Privatization of state owned companies (water, electric, phones,oil, mines, etc.) deregulation and reduction in social spending. All this "free marketing" brings down any trade and tariff protections, brings reduction in wages, repeal of minimum wage laws, busting of trade unions, removal of price controls, loss of government and private pensions, unemployment and increases food and utilities prices. In spite of this great effort to bring the "free market" to Chile, the Chilean people would not fall for it. In 1970 they elected Salvador Allende to the presidency. He was...hide the children!...a socialist. He began to implement more social programs and land reform to help his country. That was the straw that broke the cammel's back. The Tricky Dick Nixon administration (Kissinger was a key player) set the ball rolling for a more U.S. corporate friendly government. Chile was now ripe for the "free market." reform. In 1973 the murderer Augosto Pinochet, with the aid of the CIA led a military coup and took over Chile. He immediately rounded up disidents, wether they be communists, union leaders, professors or economists, journalists, who did not see the "free market" light. These thousands of persons were murdered and/or disappeared (Remember the movie Missing?) When the free market policies were adopted, natuarally unemployment, homelessnes, increase in food and utilities prices ensued.
Milton Friedman advised and encouraged the murderer Pinochet through the tough times, when the poor general saw that these "free market" reforms were not working as advertized. Eventually Chile did recover. Of course the free marketeers call it "the miracle of Chile." They take credit for its financial succes. The truth is that the murderer Pinochet did do one thing right. He refused to privatize Chile's copper mines (Chile supplies 20% of the world's copper). He later began to reimplement some of the socialist policies of Salvador Allende.
Chile was the laboratory of Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys. These policies were later carried out by military juntas in Uruguay and Argentina, and eventually Asia, Africa and Russia with the same results. The people get screwed and the elite increase their wealth and power. When the people revolt, the get the added "free market" benefits of being kidnapped, tortured, murdered and or disappeared. Of course not all "free market" reforms are brought about by military force. In other countries like Bolivia the reforms are brought into play through secretive wheeling and dealing by sell out politicians. Another trick is to use natural disasters, wars or economic threats real or immagined to implement "free market" reforms, while the people are distracted by other things. The truth is that the "free market" cannot be brought into play in the light of day.When the people see that they will have to sacrifice their livelyhoods and the well being of their families, so that the rich can get richer...their aversion to it is a no brainer.
.

Not too many bones to pick, seeing that it is mostly historical reference. Speaking of Chicago... have you ever discussed certain of your ideas and thoughts with 1950's era U of Chicago economists and students? If you have not, I certainly think you would enjoy it. They come from an environment where all ideas are tested and are not as concerned about being PC in the arguments. Of course, we both know what economic thought ruled the day during those years, but I still think you would enjoy the discussion.

How else are governments or market system (or non-market systems) usually changed? Humans are adverse to change, or more precisely, adverse to the unknown. A quick look into history would demonstrate that such changes are almost always through war, military power, natural disaster, etc. The free-market advocates do not have a monopoly on that.

On a side note, I do not doubt that other governments or non-market systems can thrive. After reflection, however, I have concluded that I personally believe that I know my own interests and what is good for me much better than the government does. Free market encourages individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and, thus, encourages these people to make better decisions. That is, however, at odds with the trend toward shifting responsibility and blame to others. The common reaction to blame others when things go awry is rooted deeply in our own human nature. Perhaps, those people who would rather leave more of their fate in others' hands, and also leave responsibility and blame on others, would thrive better in another economic system. To call a free market system a scam is a bit disingenuous.

We have hijacked this thread, perhaps if you wish to respond... a new topic should be the forum.

 

[USAir757]

Not too many bones to pick, seeing that it is mostly historical reference. Speaking of Chicago... have you ever discussed certain of your ideas and thoughts with 1950's era U of Chicago economists and students? If you have not, I certainly think you would enjoy it. They come from an environment where all ideas are tested and are not as concerned about being PC in the arguments. Of course, we both know what economic thought ruled the day during those years, but I still think you would enjoy the discussion.

How else are governments or market system (or non-market systems) usually changed? Humans are adverse to change, or more precisely, adverse to the unknown. A quick look into history would demonstrate that such changes are almost always through war, military power, natural disaster, etc. The free-market advocates do not have a monopoly on that.

On a side note, I do not doubt that other governments or non-market systems can thrive. After reflection, however, I have concluded that I personally believe that I know my own interests and what is good for me much better than the government does. Free market encourages individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and, thus, encourages these people to make better decisions. That is, however, at odds with the trend toward shifting responsibility and blame to others. The common reaction to blame others when things go awry is rooted deeply in our own human nature. Perhaps, those people who would rather leave more of their fate in others' hands, and also leave responsibility and blame on others, would thrive better in another economic system. To call a free market system a scam is a bit disingenuous.

We have hijacked this thread, perhaps if you wish to respond... a new topic should be the forum.

Once again, well done.

 

[El Che]

Simplistic? perhaps...

Suffering as a Depressed Paranoid Schizophrenic Maniac like you?....Hardly so "Cabron Che"

Like I said If you know of a country that would better suit your needs and desires then by all means ....Tear Your Socialista Arse and speak out against those communist governments you so admire!

You seem to be obsessed with communists, yet the government you love so much has no problem giving all its industry to China. Are they good free market loving "commies"? Do you diferentiate between free market sweat shop of the world "commies"and your run of the mill anti capitalist working class and poor "commies"? How's your chinese made Zebco fishing reel holding up? :down:

 

[El Che]

Not too many bones to pick, seeing that it is mostly historical reference. Speaking of Chicago... have you ever discussed certain of your ideas and thoughts with 1950's era U of Chicago economists and students? If you have not, I certainly think you would enjoy it. They come from an environment where all ideas are tested and are not as concerned about being PC in the arguments. Of course, we both know what economic thought ruled the day during those years, but I still think you would enjoy the discussion.

How else are governments or market system (or non-market systems) usually changed? Humans are adverse to change, or more precisely, adverse to the unknown. A quick look into history would demonstrate that such changes are almost always through war, military power, natural disaster, etc. The free-market advocates do not have a monopoly on that.

On a side note, I do not doubt that other governments or non-market systems can thrive. After reflection, however, I have concluded that I personally believe that I know my own interests and what is good for me much better than the government does. Free market encourages individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and, thus, encourages these people to make better decisions. That is, however, at odds with the trend toward shifting responsibility and blame to others. The common reaction to blame others when things go awry is rooted deeply in our own human nature. Perhaps, those people who would rather leave more of their fate in others' hands, and also leave responsibility and blame on others, would thrive better in another economic system. To call a free market system a scam is a bit disingenuous.

We have hijacked this thread, perhaps if you wish to respond... a new topic should be the forum.

No I've not had the pleasure to speak to Milton Friedman or any of his associates. However I have a sister who is a Wharton MBA. As you might guess, our discussions can get heated. When she cannot deny the fact that free market and globalism in their present incarnations only benefit a select few, she labels me an idealist.
I don not have a problem with free market or competition. But we do not have a true free market. We have crony capitalism and monopoly, more akin to mercantilsim. Lets not forget all the corporate welfare in the forms of subsidies and tax breaks gieven to the capitalists.
You are correct. People have a tendency to blame others for their failures. The capitalist is no exeption. Blame "those people" for their strife. "Those people" don't know what's good for them. Look at "those people," they're always starting revolutions, they need an iron fist to lead them.
In the 1930's FDR came up with his New Deal. So called conservatives and corporate lackeys hate it. FDR is bad mouthed at every oportunity on so called conservative radio. The capitalist should be grateful. What FDR did was save the capitalists from themselves. In 1932 over 2,000,000 americans voted for communists or socialists candidates, after seeing the resulsts of untethered capitalism in 1929. Revolution was in the air but FDR snipped it in the bud before it could bloom.
After WW2, the Marshal plan allowed the war torn European economies to rebuild themselves. There were no "free market" policies enforced in Europe. Tariffs and protectionits walls were set up tp protect local industries. As we know, Europe prospered. With the Soviets knocking, the last thing the U.S. wanted was to impose any austerity measures and push Europeans into the Soviet sphere. This is proof that the so called "free market" is not a cure all to bring prosperity. What it does is to bring prosperity to only to a select few.
In a perfect world you could have your "free market" that would benefit all. Maybe when Christ returns, but not now. Capitalist love the term "trickle down." Yet the people in the lesser developed counties (LDCs as they are know in finance and economics) have as much chance of benefiting from "trickle down," as my dog would have quenching his thirst from some sweat off my gonads "tricking down" into his bowl :down:

 

[Gilding the Lily]

No I've not had the pleasure to speak to Milton Friedman or any of his associates. However I have a sister who is a Wharton MBA. As you might guess, our discussions can get heated. When she cannot deny the fact that free market and globalism in their present incarnations only benefit a select few, she labels me an idealist.
I don not have a problem with free market or competition. But we do not have a true free market. We have crony capitalism and monopoly, more akin to mercantilsim. Lets not forget all the corporate welfare in the forms of subsidies and tax breaks gieven to the capitalists.
You are correct. People have a tendency to blame others for their failures. The capitalist is no exeption. Blame "those people" for their strife. "Those people" don't know what's good for them. Look at "those people," they're always starting revolutions, they need an iron fist to lead them.
In the 1930's FDR came up with his New Deal. So called conservatives and corporate lackeys hate it. FDR is bad mouthed at every oportunity on so called conservative radio. The capitalist should be grateful. What FDR did was save the capitalists from themselves. In 1932 over 2,000,000 americans voted for communists or socialists candidates, after seeing the resulsts of untethered capitalism in 1929. Revolution was in the air but FDR snipped it in the bud before it could bloom.
After WW2, the Marshal plan allowed the war torn European economies to rebuild themselves. There were no "free market" policies enforced in Europe. Tariffs and protectionits walls were set up tp protect local industries. As we know, Europe prospered. With the Soviets knocking, the last thing the U.S. wanted was to impose any austerity measures and push Europeans into the Soviet sphere. This is proof that the so called "free market" is not a cure all to bring prosperity. What it does is to bring prosperity to only to a select few.
In a perfect world you could have your "free market" that would benefit all.

El Che,

At first I thought that your handle and quote was a bit of a theatrical ruse, but after your reference to "crony capitalism," I think you may have spent some time in Latin America, if not currently a resident. Am I right?

The reason why I say that is the term, "Crony Capitalism," is used quite frequently by anti-capitalist in South America. As you know, there has been a significant shift in recent years by certain South American governments towards left-of-center policies. It is very difficult to reconcile this shift leftwards with the behemoth countries that are now moving away from communism and socialism towards more capitalist-like economies (ex. India, China). Not only that, some European countries that you reference have moved away from government controlled economies (ex. Poland).

Crony Capitalism in south America is much more of a problem than in the U.S. The south American political connections are much more engrained and less transparent than in the U.S. While the U.S. does have problems with crony capitalism, it is not nearly as severe. In my mind, a bit of crony capitalism is better than government-enforced poverty... that is unless you are good friends with the communist leader and prove undying support of his/her wishes. Crony Capitalism is a hindrance to a free market. It is not a problem with the model, but rather a problem with certain individuals operating within the model. In my view, Socialism/Communism has a problem with the model. They have shown to work with limited success when the government can capitalize on enormous revenue, particularly due to natural oil or other commodities. When that revenue dries up (figuratively speaking) such models have, historically speaking, failed.

There is a major difference between the differing systems that creates two entirely different ramifications. One system has a problem, but yet gives the opportunity -- and, in fact, encourages - - others to make wise decisions and reap the benefits of such decisions (the number of millionaires in the U.S. grew 11% in 2005 and 21% in 2004). System #2 however, often promises wealth distribution and better services for the poor. Those promises are often unfulfilled (see India). But even if a redistribution actually occurs, it often leaves *all* citizens begging, rather than just a small minority. I prefer to reap the benefits of my own choices and risks, rather than sit idly by hoping that my government has my best interests at heart AND can provide for those interests.

Lastly, other people have mentioned in passing the effect of bailing out Banks. They claim - -perhaps rightly so - - that such bailouts can create moral hazard which encourages risky lending in the future. In a similar fashion, government controlled economies often provide reverse incentives that trap people in poverty. When citizens are shielded from the consequences of poor decisions -- or worse, laying on their fat butt - - they have no incentive to make better choices or to stop being lazy. That becomes an undue cost on the government because the citizen no longer bears the full cost of such detrimental behavior. This undue cost, in turn, hurts the entire community.