Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#3401 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 02:30 AM

<Heaven is...
"Do you know what heaven is? It's a German car, a Swedish woman and an American salary." Tman (28) is sitting in a restaurant in the Syrian capital, Damascus. He's unemployed v just like an estimated 20 percent of his fellow Syrians v. "And do you know what hell is? A Japanese car, an American woman and a Syrian salaryhttp://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/syr040716.html>

Thanks for the joke, and it makes the point that everything is relative. Now some more humor...:D

(Woj, look for the link at the end);)


> > Go to France, and try importing a Peugeot to America. Be ready to pay
> > big bugs to get past the regulations...
>
> Grrrrr.....right, breaking my own advice about ignoring offensive OT posts:
> Why have you posted this ignorant ridiculous rubbish to an opera neswsgroup?
> SUV's have had a tax surcharged on them in Paris only for *environmental*
> reasons.
> But I suppose you think you have to have the "freedom" to drive around in
> petrol-guzzling monsters that not only waste the world's resources and are
> contributing to the destruction of the planet but are much more likely to
> cause death or serious injury to children or other pedestrians in crowded
> urban areas.
> And the reason SUV's are so popular in America is because they are taxed at
> a very low level due to their being classified as *farm* machinery"!!
> Which policy do you think makes more sense, the US' or France's? I know
> which one I'd choose......
> Vive la France!

"Farm machinery"? No wonder they hide behind tinted windows...;)

Do you know these wonderful pieces of machinery?

http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html
  • 0

#3402 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 05:36 AM

Howdy DonQ:

I didnt participate in the poll because none of the options were the answer in my view.

The likes of the South Improvement Society, like the East India Company, etc make it appear that the Corporate entity are the
string puller (puppeteer).

It is a fract that there is an invisible hand in economics, like a
natural law, that some may call yin and yang, but there is no doubt that there is a human one. While the corporate certainly plays a game at a level that the public cant see they are alsp subordinate to the international banksters and the dynamics of the money system. Its the ignorance of the latter that has people captured by the phrase Conspiracy Theory who can only accept the law of nature aspect rather than those who expose the Lion.
  • 0

#3403 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 07:27 AM

> > "the winner is the guy that fights dirtiest": I call it the "survival
> > of the meanest" as there's little room for a fair fight.
>
> Aka "the race to the bottom".

Or "rat race to the bottom," which tells you the nature of the
participants.

>
> > The issue at
> > hand: The SUVs and bicycles are both "free" to ride the streets. But
> > is it level field, or the SUV wins every time in a collision with the
> > bicycle? Of course, people is intimidated into--and lacking any other
> > law other than the "law of the jungle"--ever bigger behemoths. We are
> > all prey to a multimillion industry that includes gas, insurance and
> > even the undertaker... ;)
>
> Well, it is less organised than that. The problem is the goal of society.
> The acknowledged goal of the capitalists is for ever expanding their own
> personal wealth. This often has a less than salubrious effect on the average
> person who is just trying to make a living, since anything that he gets
> *could* have been taken by the capitalist under 'profits' by reducing wages,
> downsizing, etc. The real problem is that the capitalists don't even see
> fair wages and the general standard of living to be a goal.

I know, the jungle is pretty balanced. This is more like monopoly by
the predators. In nature ants are allowed to organize etc. In
political jungle the only organization they are allowed is to keep
them DEPENDENT.

>
> >
> > Now, SUV owners--or any other in the "industry"--never propose
> > anything that would level the COMPETITION: TRAFFIC LAWS, BICYCLE,
> > ELECTRICAL VEHICLES. You are at the mercy of the law of the
> > jungle--twice. ;)
>
> However, you can often get an accomodation if you are good enough at public
> speaking to motivate the population. Separate bicycle paths for instance.
> Such minor things are tolerated by those who are after the 'big bucks'. They
> really don't care about the general living conditions. Only their own.

Well, they control the "invisible hand," and so they move the
politicians. These only need the money, since "public speaking
courses" are readily availble.

>
> >
> > In the following political compass there are four quadrants: left and
> > right, and authoritaritanism and libertarianism. The left and right
> > model simply doesn't work...
> >
> > http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
> Neither do the top and bottom. The center is uncomfortable for most but it
> is also where most people are. P.S. mine was -3,-3 before they revised the
> test.

Well, the "no lion" option (bottom) could compete without eating each
other: The animals on the right based on their individual strenght,
the ones on the left based on cooperation. Not everyone would be on
the left, right? ;(

>
> >
> > Now, look at these other results: 86% reject authority--what I call
> > the "lion." Why? Because the camp above the line rejects fair
> > COMPETITION. In the end, Right-Authoritarian and
> > Left-Authoritarians--the "arch-enemies"--are accomplices...
>
> Authoritarians reject competition, true. They want their own voice heard.
> But so do the bottom layer. The 'libertarians'. The means to do it are the
> only difference. The authoritarians want to do it by taking power from the
> state. The Libertarians want to do it by preventing the state from
> interfering in their power.

The Righ-Libertarians *claim* they want COMPETITION, so we can take
them at their word. If not THEY BECOME THE LION.

>
> >
> > http://engforum.prav...?threadid=87995
> >
> > This is the story that started the theory...
> >
> > THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
> >
> > Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, lived a Lion and a Monkey... One
> > day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always taking the LION'S SHARE, and
> > seeing that such injustice represented a danger to all the species of
> > the jungle, demanded JUSTICE... The Lion, yawning and stretching,
> > said, "You would have to have paws and sharp teeth..." Then the
> > Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the
> > costume store, and look like a lion...
> >
> > When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasn't a match for
> > him, and fearing COMPETITION, killed him on the spot --before the
> > indifferent look of the little animals of the jungle... And that's how
> > the Law of the Jungle was re-established one more time...
>
> Hmm. Now if there were one lion and a huindred smart monkeys... maybe a
> different end to the story, with the lion in a cage called a 'zoo'. The fear
> of democracy among capitalists is precisely because their power ( political,
> economic, decision making, etc ) is threatened by the collective will of a
> large number of less powerful. Something like the fear humans have for a
> colony of fire ants. Individually they can be crushed... Note also that the
> lion would starve if it tried to survive on ants. Too much effort for too
> little reward. The powerful really do most of their competiton among each
> other since only other lions are meaty enough to be worth the trouble. They
> fear the public and so the birth of propaganda, spin campaigns, etc.

The opposing predator is very important to keep the sheep under
control. If there were none they may see their own. Rarely predators
eat each other, and it only happens in cases of open competition.

> > Cooperation among predators? Sure, all the time: lions, hyenas... They
> > rarely COMPETE WITH THEIR OWN SPECIES, but with other species in the
> > effort to CRUSH THE COMPETITION.
>
> Actually they do compete, but only when they are the larger. I.e. they know
> they will win. The smaller capitalists is always afraid of the bigger
> capitalist as they have enough 'meat' on their bones to be worth consuming.
> As a monopoly they are the only lion left and can snack to their hearts
> content though on smaller fare.

They cooperate more--to keep the little animals down--than compete.
Their only purpose is to KEEP THE JUNGLE IN PLACE.;)
  • 0

#3404 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 08:08 AM

<I didnt participate in the poll because none of the options were the answer in my view.

The likes of the South Improvement Society, like the East India Company, etc make it appear that the Corporate entity are the
string puller (puppeteer).>

Hi Bader
I think the Corporation is quite an independent puppet as to become a puppeteer on its own. Of course they have a master puppeteer who controls the whole show, but they don't respond directly to it but rather spontaneously. They all have a purpose in mind: TO KEEP THE JUNGLE.

<It is a fract that there is an invisible hand in economics, like a
natural law, that some may call yin and yang, but there is no doubt that there is a human one. While the corporate certainly plays a game at a level that the public cant see they are alsp subordinate to the international banksters and the dynamics of the money system. Its the ignorance of the latter that has people captured by the phrase Conspiracy Theory who can only accept the law of nature aspect rather than those who expose the Lion. >

There's such a natural hand (COMPETITION), but the invisible hand is mostly that of MONOPOLY.;)
  • 0

#3405 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 01:44 PM

@US suffers far heavier casualties in Iraq than it officially admits; The actual U.S. military losses in Iraq may have reached 2,000 personnel, more than twice the official figure of 900, as Washington badly understates its casualty statistics, a military diplomatic source told the Itar-Tass news agency.
"Official statistics do not include casualties among non-U.S. nationals who sign up to serve in the American armed forces in order to get a U.S. `green card. @http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/24/stories/2004072402401400.htm

The biggest curse of world is competition. It creates the lie.
Lie establishes the Media.
Media uses journalists. J
ournalists glorify competition .
Circle closes. Wars are go on. :)
  • 0

#3406 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 02:03 PM

@I don't understand why Britain and the United States are systematically increasing pressure against us and not operating through the United Nations,'' Mr Ismail said. ``(This) pressure closely resembles the increased pressure that was put on Iraq.''
He was responding to a report that Downing Street had drawn up contingency plans involving British forces it would be a mistake for Britain to become involved militarily in Darfur, Sudan .
``If (Mr. Blair) is going to send troops to Sudan, we will withdraw our troops and give him a chance to maintain security,'' :)@http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/24/stories/2004072402351400.htm
Sudan has oil...


What is purpose of competition; elimination of the competition, it means the creation of monopoly. How one can eliminate the competition? By war. Who the first tries to eliminate competition by war ; the churches and other religion establishments. Only communism doesn
  • 0

#3407 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 02:28 PM

VATICAN CITY - Adding to international appeals, Pope John Paul a special emissary to Darfur , and called on the Sudanese government to put an end to violence and rights violations. http://story.news.ya...pe_John_Paul_II
Sudan has oil. Before Pope was very much supportive in US involvement in Eastern Timor. East Tomor also has oil.

The international community should focus on supplying humanitarian aid rather than troops to help those suffering as a result of fighting in the Sudanese region of Darfur, the nation's foreign minister said.
``Why should we have to rush and talk about military intervention ?

Where Vatican has its investment? in Poland, in farm growing or US/UK oil industry ? Halliburton has Pope blessing or SUV's so popular in America is because they are taxed at
> a very low level due to their being classified as *farm* machinery"!! (Donq)?

God should be seen for everybody but not Vatican investment , ha ha. :)
  • 0

#3408 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 05:01 PM

<What is purpose of competition; elimination of the competition, it means the creation of monopoly. How one can eliminate the competition? By war. Who the first tries to eliminate competition by war ; the churches and other religion establishments. Only communism doesn-t support churches. Only communism proclaims peace. :) >

Howdy Woj
You got a point, but it's not competition eliminating competition, but MONOPOLY CRUSHING COMPETITION.

You are not getting off this hook...:D

> > Your choice imposes on other people's choices. Actually it forces them
> > into ever bigger "safer" vehicles.
>
> Culminating in the M1 Abrams tank, the ultimate in 'crash resistance'....
> with the option of blowing the **** out of any T-92 you find blocking your
> way...

Howdy Ian
People will then claim in this far-fetched scenario that it is their
right to drive an M1 tank, and it is so--to the detriment of all
others who will live in fear. Of course the makers of American tanks
will try to keep the smaller French tanks out of the market--in fear
of COMPETITION.

In other words, FREEDOM FROM COMPETITION results in FREEDOM FOR THE
FEW that will ULTIMATELY RESULT IN LACK OF FREEDOM FOR THE MANY.

In the following forum they cleverly argue for COMPETITION, and they
got a point--so long as they accept it. In the subject at hand, if
ELECRICAL VEHICLES were ACCEPTED and made SAFE, we could talk about a
level field. In the meantime, and in lack of competition, WE CAN TALK
ABOUT A LION.

Their attack on the "socialists" then can be extended to the
proponents of American capitalism. I know it sounds confusing but IN
THE JUNGLE NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS.;)

Notice my story posted at the end--which shows they accept
competition.;)

The Three Marketeers

In order to make a judgment, we must have a standard by which to
compare the object in question. For example, if someone says, "this
apple is sweet", that would only make sense if we lived in a world
with foods that were not sweet. Otherwise, the statement is about as
meaningful as "this apple is made of atoms."

The same is true in political theory. When someone criticizes
capitalism, they must show that the same criticism would not apply to
socialism as well; otherwise, the criticism is not really about
capitalism at all - it would be true regardless of the economic
system.

Thus, when socialists claim that capitalism causes alienation, greed,
the breakdown of the family, and a general disregard for the happiness
and wellbeing of our fellow man, I must ask whether the same would not
be true of any economic system in an advanced, modern society.

http://www.catallarc...ves/000690.html
  • 0

#3409 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 07:33 PM

Arm rebels to cause a crisis to justify intervention to break up the country into small more dependant states and steal its assets.
Like scaring children into giving up their lollies.

And the Major media players tell it like childrens stories as though we havent seen it all before.

The Whitehouse has closed news in Afghanistan and Iraq, which means they have blocked competition between journalists and
major media. THey have even resorted to killing journalists in Iraq to drive their point home.

Eliminate Competition by War:
began thousands of years ago long before the church existed.
The principle in the Three Marketeers that Donq has posted
applies in the claim that religion/church in itself is the problem of mankind. Man is a religious creature. One could say he is greedy because he wears clothes or some other common factor.
We need to get beyond the Hegelian/Marxist dialectic competition
that weaves its lion web around our thinking.

Better than the principle in the Three Marketeers is to judge whether the dynamics of any system/idea/philosophy or the trend is towards freeing man or controlling man, thus when you look at communism as an answer you would go from the frying pan into the fire to chose that. Who funded and staffed the first Bolshivist govt? You might as well go and live in Israel.
  • 0

#3410 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 07:37 PM

click on the caricature...;)

http://www.jibjab.com/
  • 0

#3411 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 07:58 PM

<began thousands of years ago long before the church existed.
The principle in the Three Marketeers that Donq has posted
applies in the claim that religion/church in itself is the problem of mankind. Man is a religious creature. One could say he is greedy because he wears clothes or some other common factor.
We need to get beyond the Hegelian/Marxist dialectic competition
that weaves its lion web around our thinking.>

Howdy Bader
The argument of the Three Marketeers continues thus...

<<<Here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The author of this piece in the Guardian begins with an anecdote:>>>

Queuing in a branch of WH Smith some months ago, I was a captive audience while one shop assistant told another about an encounter with an elderly woman who was looking for a book that wasn't on the shelves. The assistant had not known and not cared where the book might be found, and the old lady had asked if she could be more helpful. "So I told her to **** off," was the assistant's triumphant punchline.

<<<After a few more anecdotes, the author attempts to make a broader argument:>>>

We live in a culture where the primacy of the self and its satisfactions is everything. We are bombarded with messages telling us that we should have what we want because we're worth it. As consumers, we are kings. We know that we have rights, that brands seek our favour; that as long as we can pay, we feel powerful. We like that sensation. It is seductive because it is so at odds with the reality of the rest of our lives. As workers and producers we are under more pressure and feel more insecure than ever before. Our private lives are increasingly unpredictable; our financial futures uncertain. There is no general respect for mundane lives, well lived, in a popular culture that celebrates wealth, beauty, celebrity, notoriety and youth. Most of us cannot feel confident about our worth and about the regard in which we are held.

This conflict between our sense of entitlement and our shaky sense of self-worth enrages us. At work many of us bolster ourselves by struggling to assert our superiority to others. Managers who crave the respect of their staff, but fear they don't have it, create the semblance of it by frightening those underneath them. They are too concerned with maintaining their status to think about the damage they are doing to their subordinates. Service staff who feel their jobs are beneath them often make their disdain clear by doing them as gracelessly as possible. Minor officials take pleasure in exercising obstructive petty authority.

<<<She then takes this argument one step further and lays the blame for this culture of selfishness directly at the (invisible!) hand of the market:>>>

The old idea that one had a social responsibility towards one's host or fellow guests is beginning to be replaced by a determination to maximise one's individual satisfaction, regardless of the emotional injury caused to anyone else. The values of the market are openly invading the social sphere. Why practise duty when you could make a contact or secure a gain?

***

It then continues to defend TRUE COMPETION along Right-Libertarian lines...

And we can say that "YES," if, and only if, that includes COMPETITION FROM COOPERATION.;)
  • 0

#3412 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 25 July 2004 - 08:17 PM

<Our folk festivals at one time leaned on governments for help, trying
to make the case that we had a culture, it was dying, it needed to be
seen to be appreciated or else we'd lose it. Now though, they seem to
do OK without government help - at least most do.>

In an ideal world, the Arts should be subsidized; the military should
go out there and pass the hat among the interested parties...;)
  • 0

#3413 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 01:37 AM

Howdy Bader
The anti-lion camp is growing. Not even the camouflage is helping him...;)

<<<That is a deliberate policy by the lions called 'camoflage' which tries to
convince the sheep that they *want* to be eaten and that the lions are
really their 'friends'. It tends to work for some reason, probably the
stupidity of the average sheep aka 'useful idiot'.>>>


> In other words, FREEDOM FROM COMPETITION results in FREEDOM FOR THE
> FEW that will ULTIMATELY RESULT IN LACK OF FREEDOM FOR THE MANY.

You can have freedom too. You just need to buy the BIGGEST AND BADDEST tank
you can find on the market. THEN YOU WILL BE ON TOP AGAIN. Of course, it
helps to have a huge inherited fortune to pay for it. The 'little people'
don't have competition like the big people. Big people are always having to
show off their 'new toys' and 'conspicuous waste' to impress their peers
that they have the upper hand now.

>
> In the following forum they cleverly argue for COMPETITION, and they
> got a point--so long as they accept it. In the subject at hand, if
> ELECRICAL VEHICLES were ACCEPTED and made SAFE, we could talk about a
> level field.

The field is not level if you are talking about the poweful vs the
powerless. Competition for resources mainly happens among those who have
power, either financial, policitical, or control.

> In the meantime, and in lack of competition, WE CAN TALK
> ABOUT A LION.

We? You mean the average joe who is just trying to avoid being eaten?

>
> Their attack on the "socialists" then can be extended to the
> proponents of American capitalism. I know it sounds confusing but IN
> THE JUNGLE NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS. ;)

That is a deliberate policy by the lions called 'camoflage' which tries to
convince the sheep that they *want* to be eaten and that the lions are
really their 'friends'. It tends to work for some reason, probably the
stupidity of the average sheep aka 'useful idiot'.

>
> Notice my story posted at the end--which shows they accept
> competition. ;)
>
> The Three Marketeers
>
> In order to make a judgment, we must have a standard by which to
> compare the object in question. For example, if someone says, "this
> apple is sweet", that would only make sense if we lived in a world
> with foods that were not sweet. Otherwise, the statement is about as
> meaningful as "this apple is made of atoms."
>
> The same is true in political theory. When someone criticizes
> capitalism, they must show that the same criticism would not apply to
> socialism as well; otherwise, the criticism is not really about
> capitalism at all - it would be true regardless of the economic
> system.
>
> Thus, when socialists claim that capitalism causes alienation, greed,
> the breakdown of the family, and a general disregard for the happiness
> and wellbeing of our fellow man, I must ask whether the same would not
> be true of any economic system in an advanced, modern society.
>
> http://www.catallarc...ves/000690.html

True. Really, their is no economic system that cannot be corrupted. The real
necessity is eternal vigilance. Note that the U.S. which claims to be
'capitalist' has a truly staggering level of corporate welfare ( aka
corporate subsidies ) which are a perversion of socialism. They have this
because the corporations have taken control ( taxes on corporations are now
about one eighth of what they were in the '40s. ) so as to push the costs of
the country onto the shoulders of the poorest and most disinherited.
http://www.ctj.org/html/whopay.htm

To note. I once had a long running battle with one 'true capitalist' that
ran a 'gentlemans retreat' but called it a farm, who claimed that he was
purely a businessman and that he had invested bigtime in the trees bordering
the stream that ran through his property. I kept pointing to the fact that
this stream protection was subsidized and was not a forest, but more of a
woodlot since he was free to cut it down when the program ended.
Unfortunately I didn't get the full story before he left the newsgroup, but
it showed that the government spent about $13,750 a year on what can only be
described as a country home, not a working farm. He knew sure how to milk
the government. Now THAT is a true capitalist, not only ****ing on the teat
but trying to pretend to be competing.

http://www.google.co...e1954&lr=&hl=en
  • 0

#3414 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 01:41 AM

The same friend wrote something that just reinforces what you say...;)

> HOW POLITICS WORKS
>
> (This little, tiny story is part of a series, in which I explain to my
> little daughter how things work.)
>
> Politics works like this: Big People of Big Country buy Big People of
> Little Country, who, by the way, will be elected in "democratic
> elections" thanks to big bucks; Big People of Big Country give big
> loans to Little Country (of course, to buy "made in Big Country"); Big
> People of Little Country pocket a big chunk and invest it in the Big
> Country, without ever investing in real development (education,
> health, the environment, etc); Little People of Little Country work
> for ever to pay back what they never got; Big People of Little Country
> thank Big People of Big Country in the name of Little Country, and
> promise to repay the big debt; and Little People of Little Country get
> big promises, just like Little People of Big Country. And they lived
> happily ever after...


Well, buying corruption is one method of ensuring profits, but there are
others. For example, once you have the countries is serious debt, you can
use 'loan conditions' to enforce a switch to a political and economical
system that gives you the advantage. Subsidized GM food can easily destroy
the subsistence farmer who has to deal with real costs, and the elimination
of supports for drought cycles ( as socialistic ) can cause periodic famines
as each market spike in food costs and lost income pushes the poor into
semi-starvation. There have also been more organised abuses such as the
millions that died in India as a result of their 'conversion' by Britain to
a 'winner take all' socieity.

http://www.foodfirst...02/f02v8n4.html

Even today, India is a paradox, with massive surpluses in the south sent by
farmers who are starving in the north.

http://www.downtoear...sec_id=31&sid=1

Moreover this massive surplus of GM free, safe food ( at 10c/lb ) could not
be sent to the starving African nations of Malawi, Zambia, etc where the
world bank was tying loans to shipments of contaminated U.S. GM grain at
eight times the price. Of course, big country wants to use crisis to
increase it's profit and sell the unsalable ( in the U.S. the starlink
contaminated grain is 'not fit for human consumption' but it is a big item
on their 'food aid'

http://www.organicco...rlinkexport.cfm

The manipulations actually go much further that this. The 'little countries'
have five times higher debt now than before the big countries started
'helping' them through control of the world bank and IMF. And most education
and improvement projects have to be cancelled to pay the bills. One typical
example is the forcing of Malawi to sell it's stockpiled grain surplus just
before the famine for depressed world prices in the name of paying interest
charges in order that they might then be vulnerable to the coming
predictable drought/famine and be required to buy high priced U.S.
contaminated stockpiles to ensure the profits of the manipulators.

http://www.rsc.ox.ac.../rrzambia00.pdf
"From a rights perspective, to defend the current failure of reform to
deliver sustained growth, let alone equitable growth, on the grounds that
the economic and social situation would have been worse without reform is
profoundly misplaced. Irrespective of any counterfactual, it is sufficient
to establish whether those realised policies and legislation that underpin
economic reform have contributed to the realisation or denial of economic
and social rights in Zambia, and to establish whether the Government of
Zambia and other actors have fulfilled their obligations under the
Covenant."

Translation. The ideological cant of the big countries that say that the
countries are 'better off' under their manipulation is not evidence of such
a claim. The proof is in the pudding and the actual results as documented.

"B. The results of economic reform: The economic reform program has been
less than successful in stimulating expansion while it has created untold
hardship for the majority of Zambians."


A secondary objective of destroying food security to put the farmer at the
mercy of the GM seed producers and destroy their market in Europe is also
easily seen.
http://www.southcent...lletin46-06.htm
  • 0

#3415 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 09:53 AM

In an ideal world for the lion everyone shall compete against the law of the jungle. The most proficient are those who deflect the
effects of the law (hidden hand) onto someone else or is able to get subsidised by others who cannot avoid it.

There is negative competition and positive. The Free Market
proponents argue its all positive, those who complain are losers.

"...the values of the market are invading the social sphere.."
this is why it is best called a revolution because it is changing society, irriversably is the intention.

People who compete for selfish gain dont unite against the hidden hand. Like Evolution its just nature, there is no design,
just survival of the fittest (to adapt).
There is no human hidden hand, no God and no Satanic Lion.
Just winners and losers/leaders and followers.
There is no right or wrong. Everything is amoral.

Enron was subsidised by Saving/retirement trusts, western consumers are subsidised by the trickle-down recipients in asian sweat factories. Leaders of the third and fourth world are subsidised by the money syphoned out of World BanK loans.
All just good competition which makes the world go round. It cant go good and it cant go bad only go round.
The biggest competition may be against sanity.

Free Market (free meaning by someone else paying) rheteric
states that competition creates greater efficiency, which implies more value for money at a lower cost. Globally everyone is concerned about the exact opposite- cost, debt, waste, want and squandering of resourses that then is used to argue there are too many people on the planet. THus we have GE deseases and GE spiked inocculations/immunisation to reduce the population,
all the products of the best brains research on earth.
If the planet wasnt controlled by criminals who hired people educated beyond their intelligence (lets be real the planet is run - not controlled, by people who represent the best that human academia can provide) to run their systems for them,
we wouldnt have to subsidise the Arts, because people would have time and money to make them great nor would the armed services elite need to support the war-mongers to ensure their
careers and salaries are as upwardly mobile (by budgets) as the corporates- soldiers of fortune. While the troops are subsidised by looting.

In Social Credit language "efficiency" means= the sole test of the efficiency or otherwise of any system of organisation is whether it produces the desired result.
So ask the consumers in the free market countries, are living standard going up because of increased value at lower costs and thus lower prices. What do we have instead, people working overtime for nothing to keep their jobs, working longer hours to pay for the transactions of the past with leans on incomes further and further into the future.
The Free Market only achieves lower priced goods by subsidy
based on slave-labour. Who's desired result is this?
Inspite of that westerners are competing with the treadmill by foot instead of voting with the foot. Who's desired result is this?
Are the results we see around the world desired? If so by whom?

The plight of the third and fourth world peoples (majority except the elite) is basically caused by the same plight but far worse
for a greater percentage than in the developed countries whom also have an elite also subsidised by by systems,laws, privileges etc
so they are not affected by the decisions they make.
Rheteric to the effect of pitching the south against the north is
just as pro-revolution as the old east v west puppet show.
I am referring to the revolution against sanity, justice and freedom by Lion Inc.
  • 0

#3416 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 11:58 AM

'Cooperatives view themselves as collections of small farm-based "David's" fighting against agribusiness Goliaths, and they place a high priority on prioritizing the small and local over the large and impersonal.'

<In an ideal world for the lion everyone shall compete against the law of the jungle. The most proficient are those who deflect the
effects of the law (hidden hand) onto someone else or is able to get subsidised by others who cannot avoid it.>

Howdy Bader
The problem is today Goliath the Lion controls the jungle thorugh key predators. The little animals are made to vote for their representative who in reality are camouflaged predators. The result is what we got: the little animals running for their life and going thirsty in a land of plenty.:confused:

Of course if we wait for the predators to build them for us we are in for a long, long wait...;)

So the solution is to build COOPERATIVES, and more coops, and more coops until every little animal has a CHOICE. At that point we will have a level field or true law of the jungle where everyone can have their own place. To top it off, people will VOTE WITH THEIR FEET among different water wells.

It sounds pretty DEMOCRATIC to me...;)

"In this way, ethics and morality become explicit in economic reasoning."

Economist Gary Lynne (U Nebraska-Lincoln) argued that by not always making market-driven decisions, cooperatives represent a prime example of metaeconomics. That is, they transcend standard economics to balance self-interest and group empathy. In this way, ethics and morality become explicit in economic reasoning. Economist Mike Cook (U Missouri-Columbia) concurred that economists might move towards breaking down the assumptions of rationality upon which many of their theories are based. Increasingly, he revealed, economists are recognizing that their models do not necessarily adequately or fully represent the real world.

http://www.aaanet.or...n/0405pa-pm.htm
  • 0

#3417 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 12:26 PM

Donq;@To note. I once had a long running battle with one 'true capitalist' that
ran a 'gentlemans retreat' but called it a farm, who claimed that he was
purely a businessman and that he had invested bigtime in the trees bordering
the stream that ran through his property. I kept pointing to the fact that
this stream protection was subsidized and was not a forest, but more of a
woodlot since he was free to cut it down when the program ended.
Unfortunately I didn't get the full story before he left the newsgroup, but
it showed that the government spent about $13,750 a year on what can only be
described as a country home, not a working farm. He knew sure how to milk
the government. Now THAT is a true capitalist, not only ****ing on the teat
but trying to pretend to be competing@

.... pretending to be competing???;
tree farm is also farm as the grain farm. Impression of gentleman retreat is not the crime.

Donq; @Thus, when socialists claim that capitalism causes alienation, greed,
> the breakdown of the family, and a general disregard for the happiness
> and wellbeing of our fellow man, I must ask whether the same would not
> be true of any economic system in an advanced, modern society.@

Not for pure nationalist and communism country. Poland never had such crime rate before switched to capitalism and let the foreign investor in
  • 0

#3418 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 01:10 PM

Bader; @In an ideal world for the lion everyone shall compete against the law of the jungle@

Wherever two people are , one is lion one is sheep. If that system broke they are going to divorce court...

@Leaders of the third and fourth world are subsidised by the money syphoned out of World BanK loans.@

The third and fourth world is also supplier of that Work Bank money mostly by work of their citizens or recourses.

@If the planet wasnt controlled by criminals who hired people educated beyond their intelligence (lets be real the planet is run - not controlled, by people who represent the best that human academia can provide) to run their systems for them,
we wouldnt have to subsidise the Arts,@

You are right ; communism subsidized the art, and we have great literature, music and film. Now on Polish TV we have Australian and Canadiam program
  • 0

#3419 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 02:37 PM

<Wherever two people are , one is lion one is sheep. If that system broke they are going to divorce court... >

Howdy Woj
Very deep observation. I have a similar problem. The sheep doesn't want to divorce though...:confused:

@Leaders of the third and fourth world are subsidised by the money syphoned out of World BanK loans.@

<The third and fourth world is also supplier of that Work Bank money mostly by work of their citizens or recourses. >

Jesus, they got everybody working for them. I wonder what they do with all that money, keep to it themselves or leave the scraps for the top predators? Is it the way of the lion to feed the predators in an ever wider circle until even the prey itself benefits from it? He calls it "trickle down.":confused:

@If the planet wasnt controlled by criminals who hired people educated beyond their intelligence (lets be real the planet is run - not controlled, by people who represent the best that human academia can provide) to run their systems for them,
we wouldnt have to subsidise the Arts,@

<You are right ; communism subsidized the art, and we have great literature, music and film. Now on Polish TV we have Australian and Canadiam program->

Lucky you. At least they are not American talk shows...;)

@Rheteric to the effect of pitching the south against the north is
just as pro-revolution as the old east v west puppet show.
I am referring to the revolution against sanity, justice and freedom by Lion Inc.@

<In every two , one is a lion. But sanity, justice and freedom can be provide by pure nationalism, where nobody is separated by the wall , but everybody is equal and needed as a solid brick in the society construction. Nationalism is solution. Slavs unite. :)>

So you can your lion in our system too, Woj. Just that he'll be tamed by COMPETITION from the COOPERATIVE LITTLE ANTS, who also have a lion, I mean a queen or whatever...:D
  • 0

#3420 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 26 July 2004 - 04:20 PM

Donq;@So you can your lion in our system too, Woj. Just that he'll be tamed by COMPETITION from the COOPERATIVE LITTLE ANTS, who also have a lion, I mean a queen or whatever...

No. Sociaties are not sheep and lion in law of the jungle but the particles of sheep-lion duality.
One can be light and electron. One can be a waive and photon . But discreet energy depends from type of atom.
Characteristic is showed by length of the wave or color.

The particular characteristic is related to atom.

Particular characteristic is related to nation.
One nation is one idea, one front, and history experiences and convictions for future.
Why one dreams of destroying the order?
Nationalism is order. Nationalism is culture. Nationalism is future. Slavs unite. :)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru