Eddie Nash
If anything goes down, i will be the first person to leave this place and say goodbye too america, Ill be in mexico, canada or the carribean in a second.
I'm sure plenty of us would be willing to help you and your family pack right now.
I'm sure plenty of us would be willing to help you and your family pack right now.
> rayonyx7 - Hmmm... Do I really need to say anything else TB? I get your issue with term surrender and peace and treaty. But my point still remains valid, unless there is a political solution, there is no way to end a war. Germany post WWII, the Ottoman Empire post collapse, the US post Rev War, the US post Civil War, etcc... Get it?
I think you miss my point: there really are no final solutions (regardless of stripe... well, perhaps Hitler's Final Solution would have been... but I am not enough of a nihilist to propose that as a solution to disputes). There are only delays (i.e., buying time), unless the underlying beliefs, views, &c. of the societies in conflict change (which takes lots of time to buy).
Further to my point, when one party is forced to sign a compact, at gun's barrel, it is hardly a meeting of the minds. More to the point, it may be a "political" (v. "military") ACT. But, it is not, in most cases, a SOLUTION... in fact, depending on how nasty the "solution" you speak of is, the next war may be much deadlier.
e.g., the end of WWI (Treaty of Versailles, which you point to as a successful "political solution"), led to what?... WWII. Not a great solution, I would say.
> Look at places where no political solution has been made: India and Pakistan; constant wars and fights. Get ready for another. Israel and Palestine. Iraq. Afghanistan since the USSR fiasco. Columbia and the FARC. The Leftist geurillas in the southern hemisphere. Burma. Thailand.
Constant little wars and fights. Here is the cold, hard truth: Perhaps there has been no peace treaty yet in those places because one side has not beaten the shit out of the other enough to force a "political solution".... Look at your examples. The main differences between the "successes" you pointed out in your earlier posts and the failures are that the "political solutions" you love arose because one side finally got knocked out or tapped out (and was forced to sign a treaty)... hmmm....
> rayonyx7 - And let ye forget my friend, the military is subservient to the political apparatus, it is only a political tool. Nothing more nothing less.
military coup anyone?.. now, now... you are smarter than that... you know that is not the case in every country or every era... luckily it is the case in the US, but not everywhere, fer sure... Wasn't the last president of Pakistan a General?? How did he take office?...
> rayonyx7 - I know my stances are hard for you to understand, but I have laid out my views very clearly. Understanding them is your issue.
Don't be a wiseass.
How do you propose we get out? Just drop it and leave? Are there no ramifications we should think about?
All you have said is we shouldnt have been there. And you laid a number of reasons going there had ramifications for Iraqis, various Muslim sects, Pakistan, &c. But that is not a stance on a present issue. The issue to take a stance on is what do we do now?
> rayonyx7 - I understand that you get joy out arguing semantics. But this isn't philosophy 101
Maybe, but my interest is hardly philosophical. And it is not so much about arguing... it is more about understanding the points of view of others.
> rayonyx7 - Labor is the key ingredient in both systems, as it is they who make up the majority and via differing mechanisms (dependent upon the system) would control/own (for a lack of a better shorter term) companies. Professional managers, who are not the owners of the companies, would be relegated to secondary status as they should be, subservient to the owners of the company.
Not sure what your point is there... that is a rehash of Marx' view - labor, nothing in there about Schumpeter at all.
The similarity in the analyses of Marx and Schumpeter is the evolution toward communism. In Schumpeter's theory intra-capitalist competition explains structural change, but for Marx change has its roots in capital-labor struggle in the process of production.
These aren't semantics...
I refer to the equivalence of neo classical economics to Marx. Your refer to good ole Joe and Marx. I would never confuse Joe with a classicalist. Your attempt to understand a differing point of view is to retort that I take no position and coulda woulda shoulda. I have attempted to respond to your posts and you tuck tail and change your stance.
Tahiti Bo - > rayonyx7 - Hmmm... Do I really need to say anything else TB? I get your issue with term surrender and peace and treaty. But my point still remains valid, unless there is a political solution, there is no way to end a war. Germany post WWII, the Ottoman Empire post collapse, the US post Rev War, the US post Civil War, etcc... Get it?
I think you miss my point: there really are no final solutions (regardless of stripe... well, perhaps Hitler's Final Solution would have been... but I am not enough of a nihilist to propose that as a solution to disputes). There are only delays (i.e., buying time), unless the underlying beliefs, views, &c. of the societies in conflict change (which takes lots of time to buy).
Further to my point, when one party is forced to sign a compact, at gun's barrel, it is hardly a meeting of the minds. More to the point, it may be a "political" (v. "military") ACT. But, it is not, in most cases, a SOLUTION... in fact, depending on how nasty the "solution" you speak of is, the next war may be much deadlier.
e.g., the end of WWI (Treaty of Versailles, which you point to as a successful "political solution"), led to what?... WWII. Not a great solution, I would say.
> Look at places where no political solution has been made: India and Pakistan; constant wars and fights. Get ready for another. Israel and Palestine. Iraq. Afghanistan since the USSR fiasco. Columbia and the FARC. The Leftist geurillas in the southern hemisphere. Burma. Thailand.
Constant little wars and fights. Here is the cold, hard truth: Perhaps there has been no peace treaty yet in those places because one side has not beaten the shit out of the other enough to force a "political solution".... Look at your examples. The main differences between the "successes" you pointed out in your earlier posts and the failures are that the "political solutions" you love arose because one side finally got knocked out or tapped out (and was forced to sign a treaty)... hmmm....
> rayonyx7 - And let ye forget my friend, the military is subservient to the political apparatus, it is only a political tool. Nothing more nothing less.
military coup anyone?.. now, now... you are smarter than that... you know that is not the case in every country or every era... luckily it is the case in the US, but not everywhere, fer sure... Wasn't the last president of Pakistan a General?? How did he take office?...
Europe: A continent of political solutions. Plenty of wars, but it is the strive towards the EU.... a political solution so that they don't have the same old wars. Working fairly well post WWII in the west.
Africa: A continent on the brink. Why, tribal warfare. No political solution. False political boundaries that no tribe can agree to. Fighting for 1000s of years. And what's the missing piece...
South America: Until recent times refer to my Africa comment. Only when all sides started to bargain, has a shift occurred. Regardless of left wing or not...
Pakistan: General of the army, yes. Military coup yes. But what did he need to stay in power?
Even the loosing side has to be brought to the table. Thanks for agreeing.
Eddie Nash: "That still doesnt change the fact that I dont give a fuck about our country"
you just summed up your sorry ass in one sentence
Who did Schumpeter study under?
Who is that famous Austrian master mind?
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. He is an.... ding ding Austrian.
Who did Schumpeter think was the greatest economist?
Walras and the marginalist revolution. Yep right up there with classicalist that I was talking about.
So I say it safe to assume that Schumpeter was an Austrian or at the very least leaning in that direction. So how do you equate Joe to a classicalist?
Please don't argue wikipedia entries with me. Argue based on a particular stance and stick to it. After all that is the point of discourse. Disagreement is half the fun.
I gave a couple of bucks to a homeless guy yesterday after leaving work late. Will he spend it on booze or smokes? Probably. But dammit, it felt good to give to somebody less privileged than me!
> Even the loosing side has to be brought to the table. Thanks for agreeing.
Dragged to the table? lol. Again, what separates the "successes" (in your view) from the "failures" is that one side got kicked into the ground and gave up. It was the threat of continued force that forced a "bargain," not mutually acknowledged gains and losses: the threat of military force.
I think this is where we have a differing perspective.
As you said before in your general statement, military is a tool of politics. You have set the game board to get one result: if political encompasses all (military, economic, etc.), then of course there can only be "political solutions", because everything IS politics. OK. A semantic victory for you... but what did you say before about semantics?
For me, if an agreement is reached only because of the use or threat of military force, then it is akin to entering a contract under duress, in law. You said something about "political solutions" allowing disputing countries to come together and bargain to mutually acknowledged benefits and losses. I think that this is merely a facade if one side is pointing a gun at the other empty-handed side while they bargain. It isn't a bargain. It is just another form of violence. And any "bargains" that arise from these types of situations are doomed from the get-go to be ephemeral, the losing side will wait, regroup, and seek revenge. In these types of situations, the things that must be done (if they can be done) to assure longer-lasting peace are nasty - dissembling societies, moving populations, breaking historical ties, dismantling economies, police states...
You've taken a snap shot at one point in time and concluded that: (i) those countries not at war today have reached a political "solution" and (ii) those countries at war have not. My argument is that it is more likely that a real "solution" has not been reached in either case.
One hundred years ago did the snap shot look the same? Nope?
That is my point. What you call "solutions" have proven, thoughout history, to be delays or bought time.
No reason to believe the snap shot will look like the one you just took one hundred years from now, either.
Your most interesting case is the EU (of course we won't mention Northern Ireland, Basques, Catalonia, Greece, and you have already disqualified Serbia, and eastern Europe). Pointing to the past 50 years without a major war, given the last 1,000 years of European history, as evidence of a "solution" is a tad optimistic. EU does show potential though... But has its current incarnation really been driven by disputes that need to be resolved between the countries of Europe [which is what we are talking about]? or a cooperative strategy to deal with globalizaton? It will be interesting to see what happens as it moves from economic integration to political integration... perhaps the only real "solution," other than Hitler's Final Solution of exterminating your enemies, is one centralized government?... hmmm... which kind of like your pure capitalism and communism, get you to the same place anyway...
> Please don't argue wikipedia entries with me. Argue based on a particular stance and stick to it. After all that is the point of discourse. Disagreement is half the fun.
I believe you are the one who recited the cliche on labor value to start us off, no? But then, if you were to recall that, it wouldn't be quite so much fun to be so condescending, would it?
> I refer to the equivalence of neo classical economics to Marx. Your refer to good ole Joe and Marx.
Not even sure what you are talking about. I first referred to JOE and MARX before you brought up anything (re-read your post, btw, you didnt refer to it as "neoclassical"). Maybe you think you write more clearly than you really do.
> So I say it safe to assume that Schumpeter was an Austrian or at the very least leaning in that direction. So how do you equate Joe to a classicalist?
I didn't. You seem to just like to put things in boxes and label them, based on one or two sentences.
Once again, in your haste to look down your nose at me, you fail to see the big booger hanging out of it.
To play along with you, so you can't say I duck...
>In pure capitalism (classical econ) there is very little asymmetrical information. I concede some is needed for profit sake, but what we see today would never occur in a real pure capitalist society. By implication, communism is the same, there is very little asymmetrical information.
Yes, about "asymetrical information"... but does that get you where you want to go? (and here I go with the SEMANTICS again): information about what?? Different types of information you are talking about, pertinent to free markets v. communism.
In a free market system, (hiding or acquiring) the pertinent information is with regard to establishing PRICE, because that is what market exchange is based on.
In a communist system, the lack of information asymmetry is due to the fact that there is no pricing information to hide or take advantage of in the first place -- there are no (freely) priced based market exchanges and communal ownership means there is no ability to realize private returns on investment in information. So, there is no information of this sort to hide because this type of information is not generated. So, yeah, much like pure capitalism there is little information asymmetry... but the pertinent information for communism is not about price anyway, it is about labor supply.
The implication is that in a non-perfect free market with information asymmetry, the information EXISTS, but is hidden or hard to find. In a near-perfect economy, most of the EXISTING information is transparent and obtainable by buyers/sellers to make well-informed decisions about exchange, so very little information asymmetry. In a communist system, there is very little information assymetry because most of the relevant information does NOT EXIST.
> Labor is the key ingredient in both systems, as it is they who make up the majority and via differing mechanisms (dependent upon the system) would control/own (for a lack of a better shorter term) companies. Professional managers, who are not the owners of the companies, would be relegated to secondary status as they should be, subservient to the owners of the company.
First off, this statement is absolutely anti-Marxist on its face. I am surprised and shocked at you.
Marxism = classless society, no?? If the managers are relegated to subservience, by implication that means the peasant owners are now extracting surplus value from them (just like what happened to the workers before)... thus, the managers become the new proletariat and we can expect a new revolution!!
Don't worry, I won't make fun of you for being inconsistent in your own argument... I am not nearly as big a prick as you are.
As for wiki... OK... let's see what it says:
On Schumpeter (1942):
"Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another. He argued that capitalism's collapse from within will come about as democratic majorities vote for the creation of a welfare state and place restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist structure."
Compare with Marx (1848):
"On the other hand, Marx argued that socioeconomic change occurred through organized revolutionary action. He argued that capitalism will end through the organized actions of an international working class, led by a Communist Party: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things."
Which view seems to be more on target, Comrade? Granted, it was a little bit unfair... Joe had almost a hundred years to really think it through.
BTW, thanks for pointing me to wiki... made it much simpler to clarify. : ))
LOL. I would NOT take that bet.
The Govt. and the UFC is out to get youuuuuuuuuuu.
Tahiti Bo -
I did not support the war. I did not say it was more or less stable prior to the war. I did not say we haven't made a mess of things.
I don't disagree with much of your opinion. That said, it still does not make the decision of when and how to leave easy.
Sure, if we "were not in Iraq in the first place" lots of things would be different... but we are.
I am simply dealing with the situation we are in now. Not dealing with "shoulda woulda coulda"...
"Told you so" is not a solution to a present situation.
Pointing out how wrong or what a bad decision it was, may make you feel better about yourself (whooppee, lots of us were against it, you know), but it does nothing moving forward; it does nothing to help those who have been injured.
Fully agree-and I have been called a "commie" on more than one occasion. I was always opposed to the war in Iraq. That said, after our Congress approved it, and sent troops over, I now think McCain's position on withdrawal is more responsible than Obama's, and I am fiercly liberal.
The if you broke it, you bought it line of reasoning. We, as a collective body, authorized the dismantling of a country's security and infrastructure--we cannot, in my opinion, in good conscience now withdraw.
Bo's general point is spot on--bitch about what ought to be and strive to make things better, but don't let this become an excuse to stick your head in the sand and igore what can be done.
Tahiti Bo - > Even the loosing side has to be brought to the table. Thanks for agreeing.On top of all of this, throw in the opportunistic usage of poltiical mythology by poltical elites seeking selfish gain. . . to further muddy a rational analysis of whom "bargained for" what, and what the legitimate greivances are later. . .
Dragged to the table? lol. Again, what separates the "successes" (in your view) from the "failures" is that one side got kicked into the ground and gave up. It was the threat of continued force that forced a "bargain," not mutually acknowledged gains and losses: the threat of military force.
I think this is where we have a differing perspective.
As you said before in your general statement, military is a tool of politics. You have set the game board to get one result: if political encompasses all (military, economic, etc.), then of course there can only be "political solutions", because everything IS politics. OK. A semantic victory for you... but what did you say before about semantics?
For me, if an agreement is reached only because of the use or threat of military force, then it is akin to entering a contract under duress, in law. You said something about "political solutions" allowing disputing countries to come together and bargain to mutually acknowledged benefits and losses. I think that this is merely a facade if one side is pointing a gun at the other empty-handed side while they bargain. It isn't a bargain. It is just another form of violence. And any "bargains" that arise from these types of situations are doomed from the get-go to be ephemeral, the losing side will wait, regroup, and seek revenge. In these types of situations, the things that must be done (if they can be done) to assure longer-lasting peace are nasty - dissembling societies, moving populations, breaking historical ties, dismantling economies, police states...
Once again, in your haste to look down your nose at me, you fail to see the big booger hanging out of it.
Once again, in your haste to look down your nose at me, you fail to see the big booger hanging out of it.
lol that is funny. great posts
That is awesome! Great work to all that donated.
Eddie Nash- I'm shocked you aren't banned yet. Anyway, here's a big fuck off from me to you and if you said that to me in person i'd blast your teeth down your throat.
Tahiti Bo - > Even the loosing side has to be brought to the table. Thanks for agreeing.
Dragged to the table? lol. Again, what separates the "successes" (in your view) from the "failures" is that one side got kicked into the ground and gave up. It was the threat of continued force that forced a "bargain," not mutually acknowledged gains and losses: the threat of military force.
I think this is where we have a differing perspective.
As you said before in your general statement, military is a tool of politics. You have set the game board to get one result: if political encompasses all (military, economic, etc.), then of course there can only be "political solutions", because everything IS politics. OK. A semantic victory for you... but what did you say before about semantics?
For me, if an agreement is reached only because of the use or threat of military force, then it is akin to entering a contract under duress, in law. You said something about "political solutions" allowing disputing countries to come together and bargain to mutually acknowledged benefits and losses. I think that this is merely a facade if one side is pointing a gun at the other empty-handed side while they bargain. It isn't a bargain. It is just another form of violence. And any "bargains" that arise from these types of situations are doomed from the get-go to be ephemeral, the losing side will wait, regroup, and seek revenge. In these types of situations, the things that must be done (if they can be done) to assure longer-lasting peace are nasty - dissembling societies, moving populations, breaking historical ties, dismantling economies, police states...
You've taken a snap shot at one point in time and concluded that: (i) those countries not at war today have reached a political "solution" and (ii) those countries at war have not. My argument is that it is more likely that a real "solution" has not been reached in either case.
One hundred years ago did the snap shot look the same? Nope?
That is my point. What you call "solutions" have proven, thoughout history, to be delays or bought time.
No reason to believe the snap shot will look like the one you just took one hundred years from now, either.
Your most interesting case is the EU (of course we won't mention Northern Ireland, Basques, Catalonia, Greece, and you have already disqualified Serbia, and eastern Europe). Pointing to the past 50 years without a major war, given the last 1,000 years of European history, as evidence of a "solution" is a tad optimistic. EU does show potential though... But has its current incarnation really been driven by disputes that need to be resolved between the countries of Europe [which is what we are talking about]? or a cooperative strategy to deal with globalizaton? It will be interesting to see what happens as it moves from economic integration to political integration... perhaps the only real "solution," other than Hitler's Final Solution of exterminating your enemies, is one centralized government?... hmmm... which kind of like your pure capitalism and communism, get you to the same place anyway...
> Please don't argue wikipedia entries with me. Argue based on a particular stance and stick to it. After all that is the point of discourse. Disagreement is half the fun.
I believe you are the one who recited the cliche on labor value to start us off, no? But then, if you were to recall that, it wouldn't be quite so much fun to be so condescending, would it?
> I refer to the equivalence of neo classical economics to Marx. Your refer to good ole Joe and Marx.
Not even sure what you are talking about. I first referred to JOE and MARX before you brought up anything (re-read your post, btw, you didnt refer to it as "neoclassical"). Maybe you think you write more clearly than you really do.
> So I say it safe to assume that Schumpeter was an Austrian or at the very least leaning in that direction. So how do you equate Joe to a classicalist?
I didn't. You seem to just like to put things in boxes and label them, based on one or two sentences.
Once again, in your haste to look down your nose at me, you fail to see the big booger hanging out of it.
"Once again, in your haste to look down your nose at me, you fail to see the big booger hanging out of it. "
*** ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cindy
"money manager capitalism"