Feel sick with the world...

[AskTheFamily]

I really don't see the point of 3% of the population sucking up money from 95% of the population, and then the money is not being spend in the economy just to stick to capatalist ideals. Honestly I don't advocate communism, but I think free-market will have the whole world crashing and just getting poorer and poorer. The whole fundementals have to change but the problem is the world is being running by the elites - whom are very narrow minded. The people also get a simply explanation of competition and free-hand, and don't see all the problems it causes.

Also once you have a nation specialize in one or two things - and it just trades on that, how will it develop? They are crippled for life.

This is why I believe their should interference by a world government - jobs should be created, but it doesn't mean everyone should get paid same amount, but not this bull [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] thing where it's reduced to the minimum amount to maximize profit. This policy will make all the money vacuumed in a few people while it's not running in the economy to create jobs, more wealth, etc...

Even in the US, 5% has more money then 95% - what's the purpose of this? How does it help anyone...your bound to never prosper...

People need to change their outlook. Marxist ideals were not a bad thing, it's just it was never implement in a proper manner. He never said equal wealth or anything like that.

 

[TG123]

Moving the goalposts. When you started, and what I responded to, was the long-term trend US has had of removing one leader and / or propping up another, which has increased the level of religious fanaticism, especially in the Middle East. And in that context, what i wrote makes sense. When you change the context and suddenly delve into different specifics, you paint my words out as a clown. Why?

You said that the problem was corruption, then that it was caused 'accidentally' or 'unintendedly'. Are you saying that the propping up of murderous dictators in the middle east was accidental or unintended? Caused by corruption? Come on.

You want to just stay in the middle east? OK. Let's look at US foreign policy there. Supply of weapons to Israel and backing it at the UN, no matter how badly it treats the Palestinians. Support for Mubarak. Ousting of popular Iranian leader (Mossadegh) and replacing him with the Shah. Arming Saddam, including giving him wmds. Starving then invading Iraq to find these wmds. Outsourcing of prisoners to be tortured in Syria and Libya. These were all accidents? Unintentional? Caused by corruption? You are too intelligent to believe that.

US policy is terroristic in some aspects. ATF was denouncing US aid to the government in Bahrain, which tortured his uncle for 23 days. I stand by him on this 100 percent, as should anyone who believes human rights should be respected. How can we claim we believe mankind is created in the image and likeness of God and not denounce torture?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I really don't see the point of 3% of the population sucking up money from 95% of the population

You don't understand capitalism. It's about productivity and trade. The 3% aren't "sucking up" wealth from the 95%. They are trading products and services for that money. Both parties are better off as a result.

Even the rich don't hide their money under a mattress. They invest it, causing promising businesses to grow, and increasing the general prosperity.

That's why capitalism has historically involved a large increase in prosperity overall compared to pre-capitalistic times.

Honestly I don't advocate communism, but I think free-market will have the whole world crashing and just getting poorer and poorer.

But this is not what has happened. Quite the opposite, aside from occasional economic recessions which arguably have their root in government policies, especially regarding currency issues.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You don't understand capitalism. It's about productivity and trade. The 3% aren't "sucking up" wealth from the 95%. They are trading products and services for that money. Both parties are better off as a result.

You still believe in the trickle-down myth?
It doesn't work like that.
When the top ten percent of the populace own more than 70% of a nation's wealth, and when the top 1% own almost 40% of the same, we are faced with a new form of feudalism - as evidenced by constantly shrinking actual wages for middle- and lower-class citizens that accompany this redistribution to the "elites".
Today's bankers and CEOs may not call themselves counts or dukes, but we've long since reached a point where the myth that all those who aren't ultra-rich are just not diligent or talented enough, and that all those who are have just worked harder can no longer be maintained.
What we've witnessed over the course of the last twenty to thirty years is the rise of a self-serving plutocracy, where those who hold positions of power grow fat on the labour of those beneath them, constantly paying less and less and pocketing a bigger and bigger share of the proceeds.

Even the rich don't hide their money under a mattress. They invest it, causing promising businesses to grow, and increasing the general prosperity.

Ah, sweet idealism! If only the financial sector worked like that, we'd probably live in a world that's considerably more just and equitable.

As it is, stock market speculation cripples countries, feasts on the plight of the hungry and relies upon short sales, toxic papers and economic bubbles that promise faster and bigger rewards than any bonafide investment.

That's why capitalism has historically involved a large increase in prosperity overall compared to pre-capitalistic times.

I think you're incorrectly equating technological progress with Capitalism here.
The plight of the working classes in industrialized countries only ended when they finally bonded together and managed to defend their own interests against factory owners and the like. Before that, a few rich people grew richer while the average employee lived in a slum and toiled for sixteen hours a day, seven days a week without sick leave, medical insurance or even a wage that'd eventually allow them to rise above their miserable existence.

But this is not what has happened. Quite the opposite, aside from occasional economic recessions which arguably have their root in government policies, especially regarding currency issues.

You've got to be kidding!

 

[razeontherock]

You said that the problem was corruption, then that it was caused 'accidentally' or 'unintendedly'. Are you saying that the propping up of murderous dictators in the middle east was accidental or unintended? Caused by corruption? Come on.

Are you saying that propping up one leader after the removal of another, which has the long-term trend of increasing religious extremism, is not corruption?!? Come on.

The only question is, was it really planned that way, did the plan go wrong, or did nobody have any idea what they were doing?

 

[razeontherock]

The plight of the working classes in industrialized countries only ended when they finally bonded together and managed to defend their own interests against factory owners and the like. Before that, a few rich people grew richer while the average employee ...

I was an elected Union official for a few years, '88-90. It might be interesting to compare how Unions currently fare, here vs there. You might have heard unions are being stripped of power here, but the fact is Companies just pass on all effects of Union demands to their customers, so there are no "concessions" to labor. Ultimately owners just shrug and say to labor "I guess you just want me to farm everything out overseas."

Which is why I don't find ATF's description of globalization to be accurate.

We have situations like Ford employees can't buy the product they make, and effective wages are decreasing.

 

[sbvd]

I really don't see the point of 3% of the population sucking up money from 95% of the population, and then the money is not being spend in the economy just to stick to capatalist ideals. Honestly I don't advocate communism, but I think free-market will have the whole world crashing and just getting poorer and poorer. The whole fundementals have to change but the problem is the world is being running by the elites - whom are very narrow minded. The people also get a simply explanation of competition and free-hand, and don't see all the problems it causes.

Also once you have a nation specialize in one or two things - and it just trades on that, how will it develop? They are crippled for life.

This is why I believe their should interference by a world government - jobs should be created, but it doesn't mean everyone should get paid same amount, but not this bull [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] thing where it's reduced to the minimum amount to maximize profit. This policy will make all the money vacuumed in a few people while it's not running in the economy to create jobs, more wealth, etc...

Even in the US, 5% has more money then 95% - what's the purpose of this? How does it help anyone...your bound to never prosper...

People need to change their outlook. Marxist ideals were not a bad thing, it's just it was never implement in a proper manner. He never said equal wealth or anything like that.

We (as in you and me) agree that the world is unfair; the thing is what we do about it, what's the next step

 

[applejack23]

Just to be fair the Iran dose suppress a lot of its minority populations such as Christians,Zoroastrians,Babis,and Baha'i it also gives money and weapons to groups it favors just as every country dose it just has less money to throw around than the US or Saudi Arabia. But we need to work together to stop this me against them thinking. We all are one family and should love and support eachother.

 

[TG123]

Are you saying that propping up one leader after the removal of another, which has the long-term trend of increasing religious extremism, is not corruption?!? Come on.

The only question is, was it really planned that way, did the plan go wrong, or did nobody have any idea what they were doing?

No it is not corruption, it is a carefully planned foreign policy. Unless you are saying that everyone from the president to everyone below him is corrupt. The installation of dictators and invasion of Iraq was not done without knowledge of the White House. We aren't talking about one or 2 shipments of arms here done behind the government's back, we are talking about decades long support militarily and diplomatically for some of the most heinous criminals, from administration to administration.

 

[razeontherock]

No it is not corruption, it is a carefully planned foreign policy.

You're talking about a "plan," made some 60 years in advance, actually followed, and followed successfully, in order to wind up where we are today.

I don't think you can furnish enough tinfoil.

If US planned anything at all before interfering with the Middle East, I'm reasonably certain the forecast for 2011 wasn't anything like what we see today.

 

[TG123]

You're talking about a "plan," made some 60 years in advance, actually followed, and followed successfully, in order to wind up where we are today.

I don't think you can furnish enough tinfoil.

If US planned anything at all before interfering with the Middle East, I'm reasonably certain the forecast for 2011 wasn't anything like what we see today.

OK you are right, I used the wrong word and I don't have enough tinfoil at home. However the arming of dictators and invasions carried out were also not done due to corruption- everyone was aware of what is taking place. Mubarak did not receive military and diplomatic aid behind Bushes/Clinton's/Reagan's back- everyone knew what he was doing to his own people and it was policy to support him. Ergo Saddam.

You are correct in that the people who backed him in the first place did not foresee the Egyptian revolution so planned is a bad word, I concur to you there. But so is 'corruption'.

 

[razeontherock]

However the arming of dictators and invasions carried out were also not done due to corruption- everyone was aware of what is taking place.

Awareness and corruption are not mutually exclusive.

 

[TG123]

Awareness and corruption are not mutually exclusive.

OK, fair enough. Going by this definition, I would agree that the 2nd definition applies. In that case, September 11th, the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda were also examples of corruption. Personally I prefer to use terms like human rights violations or complicity in terrorism or complicity in genocide (in the case of Guatemala and I would also argue would be the case when the US was arming Saddam in the 1980s), but corruption would also be acceptable I guess.

cor·rup·tion

   [kuh-ruhp-shuh

n] Show IPA
noun 1.the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.
2.moral perversion; depravity.
3.perversion of integrity.
4.corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
5.bribery.
Corruption | Define Corruption at Dictionary.com

 

[Sister of Faith]

"عجبا لأمر المؤمن كله له خير، وليس ذلك لأحد إلا للمؤمن، إن أصابته سراء شكر فكان خيرا له، وإن أصابته ضراء صبر فكان خيرا له

 

[AskTheFamily]

"عجبا لأمر المؤمن كله له خير، وليس ذلك لأحد إلا للمؤمن، إن أصابته سراء شكر فكان خيرا له، وإن أصابته ضراء صبر فكان خيرا له

So what your saying I should be happy my uncle got tortured because it's good for him? Everything that happens is for the best and determined by God?

 

[Sister of Faith]

So what your saying I should be happy my uncle got tortured because it's good for him? Everything that happens is for the best and determined by God?

I didn't really meant that but Allah says:
وعسى أن تكرهوا شيئا وهو خير لكم وعسى أن تحبوا شيئا وهو شر لكم والله يعلم وأنتم لا تعلمون

 

[TG123]

I didn't really meant that but Allah says:
وعسى أن تكرهوا شيئا وهو خير لكم وعسى أن تحبوا شيئا وهو شر لكم والله يعلم وأنتم لا تعلمون

Sister of Faith, could you please translate the Arabic verse into English for those of us who do not speak Arabic?

Dziekuje bardzo, byloby to ladnie z twojej strony. Pomaga to nam ktorzy arabskiego nie rozumieja.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Sister of Faith, could you please translate the Arabic verse into English for those of us who do not speak Arabic?

Dziekuje bardzo, byloby to ladnie z twojej strony. Pomaga to nam ktorzy arabskiego nie rozumieja.

And it maybe that you dislike a thing, and it is better for you, and perhaps you may like a thing, and it's worse for you, and God knows while you do not know.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

And it maybe that you dislike a thing, and it is better for you, and perhaps you may like a thing, and it's worse for you, and God knows while you do not know.

Ah, it's the line of reasoning you attacked in the theodicy-thread!

I agree that it's a HORRIBLE rationalization that cannot really account for the theodicy-dilemma.

If you posit the existence of a personal, supernatural deity of supreme power, and also claim that this deity intervenes miraculously with what's happening in the universe, then you cannot account for most of the suffering that's happening on this planet, no matter what angle you try.

All the separate theodicies are like a blanket that's too small to cover the whole body: each time you try to close a gap by drawing it in one direction, a new one opens up.

 

[Sister of Faith]

Sister of Faith, could you please translate the Arabic verse into English for those of us who do not speak Arabic?

Dziekuje bardzo, byloby to ladnie z twojej strony. Pomaga to nam ktorzy arabskiego nie rozumieja.

That was verse 216 of chapter 2 (the Cow). Allah says: { Yet it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you; and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you; God knows, and you know not.} [2:216].
I'm sorry but I will do it again
This verse is great, I had a strange story with it. It is absolutely true.
Alhamdu lilah.