The Real Deal

[diehard]

Simply a must read.

"These maniacs in Copenhagen are voting on your future:

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

UPDATE

And at the end of this first clip, Chavez rouses the rabble with more anti-Americanism, too:

I don’t think Obama is here yet. He got the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day as he sent 30,000 soldiers to kill innocent people in Afghanistan."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans

Using junk/faked science to promote a Socialist One World Government. Must read.

[Gopher4Life]

No, Obama doesn't lean toward socialism. Tell me it ain't so. ;)

[hyaluronic]

Here's the thing: He's right. Capitalism is not fair to third world countries. It is a form of quasi-imperialism. Diehard, you have mentioned that free markets are not a zero-sum game. And you're right, however, oftentimes there still are "winners" and "losers." There are strengths and weaknesses to both capitalism and communism (I use this term due to the wide interpretation of 'socialism'). From a third world country's perspective - communism may often appear to be the better choice. Is it true? <shrug> That would be a rather complex analysis.

[Gopher4Life]

hyaluronic,

Get real.

Without those damn American capitalists, this world would be suffering far more than it is now. What would the rest of the world do for foreign aid, disaster relief, missionary schools and clinics, hunger relief, military assistance, and agricultural ed if not for those greedy Americans?

[hyaluronic]

Say what you will, but when you export the raw material (low cost) and then have to import the finished goods (high cost), you are at quite a disadvantage economically. Americans are charitable and have sent aid back in various forms. That does not mean third world countries are better off on the whole.

[Gopher4Life]

>>That does not mean third world countries are better off on the whole.<<

Get real.

Many of them probably wouldn't exist today without the American support they've received.

[bga1]

Here's the thing: He's right. Capitalism is not fair to third world countries. It is a form of quasi-imperialism. Diehard, you have mentioned that free markets are not a zero-sum game. And you're right, however, oftentimes there still are "winners" and "losers." There are strengths and weaknesses to both capitalism and communism (I use this term due to the wide interpretation of 'socialism'). From a third world country's perspective - communism may often appear to be the better choice. Is it true? <shrug> That would be a rather complex analysis.

Take a look at the communist countries of the past and present. How do the people fare?

When the third world leaders come looking for the world to share with them, who do you think reaps the spoils if the world meets their wishes? It won't be the people- that's certain. The leadership will take it for themselves.

Life isn't "fair" in the material sense and it was never meant to be.

[hyaluronic]

>>That does not mean third world countries are better off on the whole.<<

Get real.

Many of them probably wouldn't exist today without the American support they've received.

Many of the countries wouldn't exist as we know them, as we (the west) have manipulated the geopolitical landscape. Your argument is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.

[hyaluronic]

Take a look at the communist countries of the past and present. How do the people fare?

When the third world leaders come looking for the world to share with them, who do you think reaps the spoils if the world meets their wishes? It won't be the people- that's certain. The leadership will take it for themselves.

Life isn't "fair" in the material sense and it was never meant to be.

I agree that communist countries have not fared well. Keep in mind that U.S. policy, what has been the largest player in the world, has aimed to disrupt the advancement of those countries. I am not advocating communism per se, but I can see how a third world country's population or leadership could be disgruntled with the outcomes of capitalism. Again, I simply do not think it is a cut and dry analysis.

[diehard]

Communism has never succeeded anywhere because it is nothing but slavery to the state. Slavery. It has always been implemented with blood, usually in the millions. Slavery is immoral and evil. The people who support any form of slavery are.... mistaken. You can never capture and hold the soul of humanity indefinitely. The life blood of the human soul is freedom. There will always be a Braveheart to defeat whatever attempts to enslave the human soul. Give it a think, it may be too obvious otherwise.

[Gopher4Life]

hyaluronic,

>>Your argument is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.<<

Well, yours is completely inane. Most of us would be working in the fields right now if not for capitalism. Same for most of capitalism's critics.

[hyaluronic]

Capitalism has worked great for the U.S. and its Western counterparts. China and Japan used protectionist policies to help build themselves up before becoming competitive in global markets. My argument is simply that one economic policy is not always better than another alternative. You disagree.

diehard - I fully admit that communism has been a bust in the past, and on the whole, it probably will be for a long time. It requires a collectivist attitude which we currently do not possess. And non-corrupt leaders. Those are certainly massive obstacles, and you may be right that those will never be overcome.

[diehard]

Yeah, I think we agree that Communism will never be the economic solution or viable as a statist solution. I believe so because of the yearning for freedom man is born with inside rather than an attitude. I agree that private collectivism within a framework of freedom is a good option for many, but not enforced or as a statist form of collectivism. I don't recognize that slippery slope.

We need to continue to work to make the US and the world (as we practically can) better places to reside. That will only work within a the framework of freedom. I know we agree there also. It can get confusing without serious thought.

[Gopher4Life]

hyaluronic,

I've heard of junior high social studies teachers who sound like you and merrily twist impressionable minds with the BS they gathered from their own leftist profs.

[hyaluronic]

G4L: My educational emphasis in school was finance. If anything, I had a conservative slant during my collegiate education. However, I also took strong interest in philosophy, and to gain a balanced perspective on economics, took a class called, "Introduction to Marxism." There is a huge paradigm shift between the two systems. Afterall, what a capitalist calls profit, a Marxist would call an exploitation of labor. The analysis of capitalism by Marxists is broad and detailed, and quite frankly, depending on one's (person or country) position in life, very convincing. Again, I do not know if communism will ever work, but I certainly understand its appeal.

More on point with the initial post, and my initial responses, the net effect of worldwide free markets on a developing country is mixed. There are times when protectionist policies are beneficial to said countries. For example, instead of exporting all of a country's resources to the highest foreign bidder, keeping some of the natural resources and developing industry will be more be beneficial in the long-term. Free markets are not necessarily forward-thinking.

[Gopher4Life]

I was trying to blame your lefty profs for your current pro-Marxist rant. It's even worse if you came upon it on your own. You and Obama appear to be natural bedfellows. I hate to imagine how backward we'd be today if not for the incentives for achievement, creativity, and investment built into capitalism...and our international friends would all be worse off as well.

[diehard]

"Afterall, what a capitalist calls profit, a Marxist would call an exploitation of labor."

A graphic demonstration of the perverse immorality of Marxism.

[hyaluronic]

I was trying to blame your lefty profs for your current pro-Marxist rant. It's even worse if you came upon it on your own. You and Obama appear to be natural bedfellows. I hate to imagine how backward we'd be today if not for the incentives for achievement, creativity, and investment built into capitalism...and our international friends would all be worse off as well.

A.) Pro-Marxist rant? Not particularly, I am just not in the camp (ala, most of America) that believes communism can be entirely discarded. Especially when you are dealing with countries who feel betrayed by capitalism. I may think Chavez is a nutjob, but I understand his complaints and his background, the same way I try to understand the basis of other unpopular regimes or groups.

B.) I'm a left-leaning libertarian/independent. I certainly believe in the merits of capitalism, but I recognize it is not a silver bullet for all problems.

C.) I disagree with the stimulus packages, bailouts, and healthcare. Our country is in rough shape financially. Now is not the time for experimenting with idealistic ends, practicality is in order. If we had zero debt and some cash reserves, I would probably be willing to support some of these endeavors, or maybe healthcare on a trial basis.

D.) You're missing the point. Chavez made comments that many in this country find alarming. However, to discard it as a rant of a crazy man is intellectually dishonest. You are ignoring valid concerns with free market systems. In the end, we actually agree, that capitalism is the best solution. You just go a step farther than me, and basically say it is always the best solution.

[hyaluronic]

"Afterall, what a capitalist calls profit, a Marxist would call an exploitation of labor."

A graphic demonstration of the perverse immorality of Marxism.

Again, it is a paradigm shift. It gives zero credence to risk and reward, which is why the conclusions drawn from the two systems are basically opposite. Marxists contends that the worker should receive the value they add to the good or service. A capitalist will say this happens naturally within free markets, and can take into account the risk/reward feature that is ignored by Marxism. I would not call Marxism immoral or perverse, but it and capitalism are wildly different viewpoints.

[diehard]

hy, you make good points, Marxism and Communism do not. Certainly not in practice for anyone anywhere. It looks much better on paper and in Philosophy class than in the real world for real reasons. Again, you are correct that from a classroom perspective they are seen differently. The 'human factor' is not understood or accounted for in the collegiate realm for obvious reasons (the profs don't live in the real world). I guess this is why the far left lives in a fantasy world.

[Gopher4Life]

hyaluronic,

I've never said that capitalism is perfect. In fact, I'm on record saying that capitalism without conscience and common sense isn't much better than the alternatives. However, to argue for Marxism and to champion the ridiculous comments by Chaves is absurd. Talk about intellectual dishonesty!!!

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

[hyaluronic]

hy, you make good points, Marxism and Communism do not. Certainly not in practice for anyone anywhere. It looks much better on paper and in Philosophy class than in the real world for real reasons. Again, you are correct that from a classroom perspective they are seen differently. The 'human factor' is not understood or accounted for in the collegiate realm for obvious reasons (the profs don't live in the real world). I guess this is why the far left lives in a fantasy world.

I mostly agree. Communism and Marxism have not played out well in real-life situations. It is certainly much easier to hypothesize and theorize its existence than to implement it, and implementation may be impossible. The conditions necessary for it to be successful, if it is possible to be successful, simply do not exist in the world as we know it. Oddly, and perhaps not coincidentally, one of the conditions I think are necessary to successfully implement communism is impending global doom - which is how global warming has been portrayed and sold to the public.

[hyaluronic]

hyaluronic,

I've never said that capitalism is perfect. In fact, I'm on record saying that capitalism without conscience and common sense isn't much better than the alternatives. However, to argue for Marxism and to champion the ridiculous comments by Chaves is absurd. Talk about intellectual dishonesty!!!

I am not arguing for Marxism or communism. Nor am I championing Chavez's comments. I just do not find them as ridiculous when I consider the worldview of Chavez. What is troubling is the response that he received from an audience that has international representation.

[diehard]

Very few Americans understand the world. Their reality exists within their cozy little community. It is an eye opener if you enter it. You wouldn't find it in a book of in a classroom. Much of it is troubling. Other parts are beautiful and awesome. In the end, there is no place like home.

[Gopher4Life]

hyaluronic,

I smell a cop out. You claimed that Chavez was correct. I claim that the ovation after his absurd comments was by left-leaning whiners all standing with their hands outstretched as they wait for even more aid from the evil capitalist.

[diehard]

I smell someone who actually thought for a second about what he had said. We all make rash comments out of frustration. There is a lot to be frustrated about.

[Gopher4Life]

I think he thought for only one second before weighing in.

[diehard]

Hy isn't the anti-American villain he portrayed himself as being with his pro-communism posts.

[Gopher4Life]

I understand that. All the more reason hyaluronic should know better. Paradigm shift, my rear.