Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[caketastydelish]

I wasn't talking about the economies of scale, I'm referring to sheer growth. The Chinese ecomony is outstripping anyone else's and has been for a long time. At the rate they're going it won't be too long before overall they're the richest nation on earth. They're certainly doing much better than Taiwan. Taiwan may have had a head start over the mainland, but they're going to be left in the dust before too long. China is poised to be the next world superpower and chances are it's going to end up being more powerful than the US, both in terms of economic clout and military might. The US is already in debt to them for billions of dollars.

Economic wealth and military might don't always go together. For example, north Korea has the fourth largest military in the world, but one of the smallest economys. Qatar has a great economy compared to most middle eastern countries, but there military is pretty small.

The reason Nazi Germany and there huge military rose, is because of the severe economic problems Germany was experiencing at the time.

If there's any number one reason China is doing so well, its because of the population. They have more population than anywhere else. So you may ask, why isn't India also doing well also? Well, China has more landmass than India, and therefor more natural recources. Hong Kong has a better economy than anywhere else in China, and it is the only place ran by free enterprise. Coinsadence? I thought not. And its all thanks you Brits, I give you credit for that.

A pattern has been continuing for some time in military warfare. Less and less humans, and more and more machines involved. Sooner or later, who knows? We may even get to the point where there are hardly any humans at the front, and mainly machines and such. Then, having such a large population won't matter nearly as much.

China's techonlogy is far behind America's. They have no chance in the future, unless it goes way up. They way things are going, if anything, Japan will have the best military in the future.

I think its only a matter of time before China gets out of communism. The way I think of it, Communism is a good "cocoon" for countrys. Here is what I mean. I'll use Russia as an example for my anaology.

1.("caterpillar stage") Russia started as a very underveloped country, very agricultural.
2.("cocoon stage") Communism modernized it. Unfortently, it sucks. But at least it modernized it.
3. ("butterfly stage") Russia is now modernized, and they got out of communism. They couldn't have got to this point without communism, but now that they're modernized, they're better off without it.

China will be the same way. The chinese government is beginning to loosen some of their trade restrictions, I've heard. I would love to see the day when China gets out of communism, and I know it will happen some day.

Once the world run's out of oil, we'll start have to use other recources. If its biofuel, that will help America a LOT since we produce more food than anyone else. Canada's recources are largly untapped, and I think they will do better as well.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

China's growth has been export driven, namely to the US. This has been a short-run viewpoint for both the US (living beyond its means) and China (fueling unsustainable growth via exports to the US). The longer they keep it up, the more they're going to pay for it economically.

That's right, sooner or later China has to quit devaluing its currency and start producing for ITS OWN CONSUMERS more. It will, and eventually it will be a powerful nation economically (moreso than the US and probably every other country given its population, though India could certainly compete), and at least economically similar to the US (much of their economic success can be traced to more intelligent economic practice...kind of interesting that China's has been a trend toward conservative economic policy, don't you think?)

The people who think communism or socialism in general is sound economic practice bother me. There's minimal incentive to do work in those setups. Decision rights, evaluation, and reward...key components in organizational architecture, are sadly lacking under socialism. Incentives to do well are leveled at least to a degree as rewards are equalized, god knows who has decision rights when a country is trying to run its entire economy like that, and who's evaluating?

Saying that capitalism fails because people work in sweatshops in some locations is also a short-term view. First of all, countries don't HAVE to put up with that. Theoretically speaking, why are wages lower there as opposed to the US? You have a huge corporation, say Nike, which was used earlier. C'mon, tell me. Why is it cheaper to produce something thousands of miles away, shipping the majority of it back? That sounds like a less-than-ideal supply chain setup to me all things being equal! Wage rates are higher in the United States, despite better technology here (which usually makes labor more efficient and less costly). Why do you think that is?

Labor rates are forced here, as are hours in many cases. In other words, socialism in the US drives the cost of manual-type labor here to the point where it can't compete with foreign labor (certain standards of living are worthwhile considerations, but then why are foreign governments allowing these things if they're not helping?! What if they WEREN'T there? Guess what happens if the foreign governments raised the cost of labor there...yeah...business will go elsewhere until labor equalized, but do keep inflation in mind then...!) There's no major difference between the physical abilities of someone in the US vs anywhere else, but the dominating economy mixed with US regulations - regulations those against conservative economics support mind you - that force it.

I am in complete agreement that the government is screwing things up routinely at least. Trying to socialize health care drastically drops the quality of care provided (I know about 8 doctors, and about 8 of them will tell you that with socialized medicine, everyone is treated more equally but the aggregate quality of care across the industry is worse, and considerably at that. I can't stomach the argument that this is a good thing...also it leaves people running hospital policies who don't know what they're doing).

It's ridiculous to try to make life "fair". That can't even be defined without argument anyway. However, most people would not consider it "fair" to take money away from people who worked for it and give it to people who didn't (and in many cases didn't even try to). Such is the basis of communism, and what many liberals in the US government seem to be pushing for...such as idiots pushing for increased taxes when it's likely we're still in the Laffer region. Pretty much everyone in this country gets at least an off-shot at education, enough that they could succeed in this environment. If one's actions are insufficient to make it in a capitalist society, as in they work less hard or are less competent than others, they should not receive as much reward as others. If you want to blather about what's fair, that seems a lot more fair to me than taking hard-earned gains from others to support those who do not work.

Don't get wrong though, while the Bush tax cuts were a step in the right direction (and the housing bubble had far more to do with the interest rates and irresponsible loans), the vast majority of what he did was idiotic regardless of partisan affiliation. YOU DON'T CUT TAXES AND RAISE SPENDING! That's not conservatism, it's stupidity, especially given the way the war's been dragged out (kind of reminds me of bad wars in Civ 4).

The world's a harsh place, to some extent you have to fend for your own interests too. Socialism is extremely inefficient. I guess the classic argument is whether you want to make everyone better off, but the rich moreso, or even it out at the expense of large amounts to the rich and small amounts to the poor (while everyone is still worse off). That's the general idea between capitalism vs socialism. I don't know about any of you, but I'd rather be 10$ richer even if it means that Bill Gates is $1000000 richer. Who cares? If he loses 500k and I lose 5, I still lose. I'd rather not.

Edit: Stalin has just as much reason to be in the game as anybody else. Yes, Khan killed less people, and there were also less people in the world. But they both killed people. A lot of them. This is true of most leaders in the game, actually. I don't want to play a game with 8 Ghandi's, it would be too easy.

Showing up in Civ 4 isn't like a special honor or something. It's not saying he was a good leader. You don't see his name on the leaderboard at the end of games, no matter what your score is. He is, however, undeniably relevant to history. He was very competent and dangerous, and unlike Hitler lasted longer (not rising to power and getting his !@#$ wrecked and dying without doing much more than ruining his country for a long time) and had more of a long-term global impact (albeit negative).

 

[finsternis]

(just came into the discussion and forum)


I have to agree with some of the people here. I think Hitler should be in the game. He is the reason for the Second World War. He might have been a horrible person but nonetheless an important figure in human history.

I think that we shouldn't decide which leaders to put on Civ 4 base on their ideologies and crimes since if we did, then only people in the game would be George, Lincoln, and Sitting Bull.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I wasn't talking about the economies of scale, I'm referring to sheer growth. The Chinese ecomony is outstripping anyone else's and has been for a long time. At the rate they're going it won't be too long before overall they're the richest nation on earth. They're certainly doing much better than Taiwan. Taiwan may have had a head start over the mainland, but they're going to be left in the dust before too long. China is poised to be the next world superpower and chances are it's going to end up being more powerful than the US, both in terms of economic clout and military might. The US is already in debt to them for billions of dollars.

Their economies are so tied its painful. My parents are kind of afraid of their rise, but I wonder if either country could truly afford conflict between the two.

 

[caketastydelish]

(just came into the discussion and forum)


I have to agree with some of the people here. I think Hitler should be in the game. He is the reason for the Second World War. He might have been a horrible person but nonetheless an important figure in human history.

I think that we shouldn't decide which leaders to put on Civ 4 base on their ideologies and crimes since if we did, then only people in the game would be George, Lincoln, and Sitting Bull.

Lets not forget Ghandi.

 

[caketastydelish]

China's growth has been export driven, namely to the US. This has been a short-run viewpoint for both the US (living beyond its means) and China (fueling unsustainable growth via exports to the US). The longer they keep it up, the more they're going to pay for it economically.

That's right, sooner or later China has to quit devaluing its currency and start producing for ITS OWN CONSUMERS more. It will, and eventually it will be a powerful nation economically (moreso than the US and probably every other country given its population, though India could certainly compete), and at least economically similar to the US (much of their economic success can be traced to more intelligent economic practice...kind of interesting that China's has been a trend toward conservative economic policy, don't you think?)

The people who think communism or socialism in general is sound economic practice bother me. There's minimal incentive to do work in those setups. Decision rights, evaluation, and reward...key components in organizational architecture, are sadly lacking under socialism. Incentives to do well are leveled at least to a degree as rewards are equalized, god knows who has decision rights when a country is trying to run its entire economy like that, and who's evaluating?

Saying that capitalism fails because people work in sweatshops in some locations is also a short-term view. First of all, countries don't HAVE to put up with that. Theoretically speaking, why are wages lower there as opposed to the US? You have a huge corporation, say Nike, which was used earlier. C'mon, tell me. Why is it cheaper to produce something thousands of miles away, shipping the majority of it back? That sounds like a less-than-ideal supply chain setup to me all things being equal! Wage rates are higher in the United States, despite better technology here (which usually makes labor more efficient and less costly). Why do you think that is?

Labor rates are forced here, as are hours in many cases. In other words, socialism in the US drives the cost of manual-type labor here to the point where it can't compete with foreign labor (certain standards of living are worthwhile considerations, but then why are foreign governments allowing these things if they're not helping?! What if they WEREN'T there? Guess what happens if the foreign governments raised the cost of labor there...yeah...business will go elsewhere until labor equalized, but do keep inflation in mind then...!) There's no major difference between the physical abilities of someone in the US vs anywhere else, but the dominating economy mixed with US regulations - regulations those against conservative economics support mind you - that force it.

I am in complete agreement that the government is screwing things up routinely at least. Trying to socialize health care drastically drops the quality of care provided (I know about 8 doctors, and about 8 of them will tell you that with socialized medicine, everyone is treated more equally but the aggregate quality of care across the industry is worse, and considerably at that. I can't stomach the argument that this is a good thing...also it leaves people running hospital policies who don't know what they're doing).

It's ridiculous to try to make life "fair". That can't even be defined without argument anyway. However, most people would not consider it "fair" to take money away from people who worked for it and give it to people who didn't (and in many cases didn't even try to). Such is the basis of communism, and what many liberals in the US government seem to be pushing for...such as idiots pushing for increased taxes when it's likely we're still in the Laffer region. Pretty much everyone in this country gets at least an off-shot at education, enough that they could succeed in this environment. If one's actions are insufficient to make it in a capitalist society, as in they work less hard or are less competent than others, they should not receive as much reward as others. If you want to blather about what's fair, that seems a lot more fair to me than taking hard-earned gains from others to support those who do not work.

Don't get wrong though, while the Bush tax cuts were a step in the right direction (and the housing bubble had far more to do with the interest rates and irresponsible loans), the vast majority of what he did was idiotic regardless of partisan affiliation. YOU DON'T CUT TAXES AND RAISE SPENDING! That's not conservatism, it's stupidity, especially given the way the war's been dragged out (kind of reminds me of bad wars in Civ 4).

The world's a harsh place, to some extent you have to fend for your own interests too. Socialism is extremely inefficient. I guess the classic argument is whether you want to make everyone better off, but the rich moreso, or even it out at the expense of large amounts to the rich and small amounts to the poor (while everyone is still worse off). That's the general idea between capitalism vs socialism. I don't know about any of you, but I'd rather be 10$ richer even if it means that Bill Gates is $1000000 richer. Who cares? If he loses 500k and I lose 5, I still lose. I'd rather not.

Edit: Stalin has just as much reason to be in the game as anybody else. Yes, Khan killed less people, and there were also less people in the world. But they both killed people. A lot of them. This is true of most leaders in the game, actually. I don't want to play a game with 8 Ghandi's, it would be too easy.

Showing up in Civ 4 isn't like a special honor or something. It's not saying he was a good leader. You don't see his name on the leaderboard at the end of games, no matter what your score is. He is, however, undeniably relevant to history. He was very competent and dangerous, and unlike Hitler lasted longer (not rising to power and getting his !@#$ wrecked and dying without doing much more than ruining his country for a long time) and had more of a long-term global impact (albeit negative).

I'm agree with you about most of the things you said, but disagree about the health care. Right now the rich get the best health care, and the middle class has it worst. Seriously, watch the movie sicko.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Haha, that's true, one must be careful where the definition of "rich" falls. Since private healthcare does still exist to an extent, those who TRULY have money can find care .

I think virtually everyone agrees the system is a mess even if they differ on the solutions. Socialized medicine is largely responsible for the quality (and often cost!) of health care for the middle class. Emotions regarding the matter run very high though, making it a political landmine few are willing to tread on for long. Actually, that same problem exists (perhaps to an even greater extent) for the social security fund. There's actually no money in there because it's been used...the fund is essentially a ton of IOU's. It's pretty bad already, I wonder if it's even fixable...it looks to me like everyone after a certain point about 10 years from now is going to have to write off their social security stuff entirely.

 

[Lord Civius]

Rofl, what are you smoking? Capitalism cares for the consumer, true, but it also disregards the working individual. The point here is, somewhere along the way to make the same product cheaper someone, somwhere will have to work for less and for longer time. The profit can only be reduced somuch, beyond that people who work will pay the price.

We were talking about healthcare in America where the individual has little say because of insurance companies. For example I don't have health insurance and Iwent to the emergency room last year. They billed me for 1300 dollars and I was irate. I went down there to find out what the hell was going on. When they billed me they thought I had insurance for some reason and when the mistake was fixed my bill was changed to 400 dollars. Now we want to erase what little competition there is by giving the government the reigns. Governments typically create 10 problems when they try to fix one.

On Club Gitmo and the veil that has been sewn over your eyes.

All of the prisoners at Club Gitmo are given every basic human right and religious freedom to worship. They are being held as a enemy combatant during a time of war. Sorry ACLU and the likes that believe they should be treated with the same due process as a US Citizen. These are Islamic extremists that are brainwashed with Martyrdom since birth in some cases. We are treating them a hell of a lot better than they treat our soldiers and media when they are captured. How you people can take the side of terrorists over the most PC military campaign in history is beside me. Bush is always the bad guy and those poor Jihadists ......

Free reign you make it sound like Pakistan military supports them, and does not persue them..? UN troops have chased the Taliban over the border numerous times violating Pakistans border, and Pakistan's response to this has been anger.

The Pakistan Gov't, and its military has little control in the Tribal regions. Though the tribes are becoming more moderate overall and their support for the Taliban is in decline.

Why should America hold right over Nuclear power, Show me proof of the goverment trainning terrorists, that i cannot point to as propoganda, and foolishness calling an entire army a terrorist organization..

USA Today
ABC News
CNN
I only used left-wing media sources to throw away any notion that it is a right wing conspiracy. If you didn't know Iran has been training and Arming Shiite Militias in Iraq then you should not be discussing World Politics.

I have no time left at the moment but I will return after work to combat all false statements and Propoganda being hurled at my great Country. BTW If you have watched Sicko and believe it then there may not be any hope for you. Hundreds of thousands of people have and continue to flee Cuba to come to the US. The proof is in the pudding.

EDIT- One more thing, you can't have MAD deterrence if one country is so hell bent on destroying the other and fulfilling a prophecy. Read up on the Religion of your enemy, and yes he is your enemy too like it or not.
Although Shiites and Sunnis often battle against each other, as is currently the case in Iraq, Wagner noted common efforts among both groups of Muslims to destroy Israel, which is a critical part of Islam taking control in the world and thus ushering in the Mahdi.

 

[Lord Civius]

I agree there need to be reforms too, we agree on something lets celebrate, except on Capitalism being better 100%, what you mean to say to a certain extent, and to within limits, with state intervention or we could end up with something similar to resident evil

I would like to end on a more positive note. The reason America has the greatest economy in the world is our love for the free market. When it is trampled on by Gov't and its special interest groups then problems are created. Look at the oil crisis in america now. If we let the free market work and take the handcuffs off of the oil companies then the problem would be solved. Environmentalists while their heart is sometimes in the right place do far more harm than good to people. Governments should be a small arm of the people to uphold law and order and yes oversee businesses and corporations. It should not redistribute wealth and try to solve every problem known to man. In the end Governments have only added to the problems they try to fix. When you let the ingenuity of the empowered individuals loose thats when progress is made.

 

[Willem]

Labor rates are forced here, as are hours in many cases.

And why is that? Because in the past it's been shown that a capitalist system unchecked is prone to abusing it's work force. It will force people to labour for long hours for as little financial reward as possible. Those labour rates and hours are in place because your ancestors fought to have a reasonable share of the massive profits the early industrialists were squeezing out of their labours. And the main reason why many third-world countries, and China, are able to make people work for next to nothing is because the labour movement in those areas hasn't become organized yet.

And your argument is totally ignoring the moral obligations of companies like Nike who are willing to turn a blind-eye to people being forced to work under the conditions they are, just so they can make as much profit as possible. I find it very hard to believe that Nike didn't know what the conditions were like for the workers in the factories that were producing their goods. They would have gone over on at least several occasions to tour the facilities before they even put ink to the paper to sign the deal, then they would have made more trips afterwards to coordinate production deadlines, delivery schedules etc. They knew full well that the people in those plants were being exploited and they didn't care because they were making lots of money from them. It was not until the public got wind of it that they did anything about it.

Trying to socialize health care drastically drops the quality of care provided (I know about 8 doctors, and about 8 of them will tell you that with socialized medicine, everyone is treated more equally but the aggregate quality of care across the industry is worse, and considerably at that.

Now that's a surprise, people with a vested interest in the status quo saying that tragedy will befall if you make a change. Come here to Canada and talk to 8 doctors and they will tell you a completely different story. The treatment our citizens recieve is in no way lacking in quality. All citizens here can get access to the same treatments that only your richest can afford, and it's costing us less per capita than what you have to offer according to that Maine study.

 

[Willem]

USA Today
ABC News
CNN
I only used left-wing media sources to throw away any notion that it is a right wing conspiracy.

Left-wing? You're joking right? All of those are almost as right wing as they come. They're just a shade better than Fox News, especially CNN.

 

[Willem]

The reason America has the greatest economy in the world is our love for the free market.

The greatest economy in the world is one that is sustainable in the long run, and yours isn't. Sooner or later it's going to crash and burn as the huge debt load you're accumulating catches up to you. You're seeing a glimpse of it now with the mortage crisis you're facing. And it's all because of your love of the free market.

 

[Grimz101]

Economic wealth and military might don't always go together. For example, north Korea has the fourth largest military in the world, but one of the smallest economys. Qatar has a great economy compared to most middle eastern countries, but there military is pretty small.
I would of pointed out to Japan.. but all goverments spend % of GDP on military, so more GDP= more money on GDP, thats what we are talking about, its all proportional baby

The reason Nazi Germany and there huge military rose, is because of the severe economic problems Germany was experiencing at the time.
Huge rise in military wasnt the only solution, i think you mean to say the goverment planned to solve the cost by Borrowing through Bonds/GILTS, or from other countries accumilating debt, and increased goverment spending, i.e the autobahns
If there's any number one reason China is doing so well, its because of the population. They have more population than anywhere else. So you may ask, why isn't India also doing well also? Well, China has more landmass than India, and therefor more natural recources. Hong Kong has a better economy than anywhere else in China, and it is the only place ran by free enterprise. Coinsadence? I thought not. And its all thanks you Brits, I give you credit for that.
I tend to agree with economists and encylopedias which point out China and India will become future superpowers and have a higher GDP than USA, its not all about natural resources, i can give you evidence of places which lack them and do well.. but well im lazy..
China & India building more capital goods than consumer, thats similar to 5 year plans, though less drastic thats why their economies growing aswell as good economic policies.. India just needs to fix up about the Castle system problems

A pattern has been continuing for some time in military warfare. Less and less humans, and more and more machines involved. Sooner or later, who knows? We may even get to the point where there are hardly any humans at the front, and mainly machines and such. Then, having such a large population won't matter nearly as much.
Or we will fight with clone armies, and light sabres!
China's techonlogy is far behind America's. They have no chance in the future, unless it goes way up. They way things are going, if anything, Japan will have the best military in the future.
Dont assume China is backwards, because it would prove your ignorance, it has wealth and can attract Experts in fields at any time.. benefit of capitalism?
I think its only a matter of time before China gets out of communism. The way I think of it, Communism is a good "cocoon" for countrys. Here is what I mean. I'll use Russia as an example for my anaology.
Well i truely believe that China is virtually Capitalist already, but i havnt admitted it before because i like to argue !
1.("caterpillar stage") Russia started as a very underveloped country, very agricultural.
2.("cocoon stage") Communism modernized it. Unfortently, it sucks. But at least it modernized it.
3. ("butterfly stage") Russia is now modernized, and they got out of communism. They couldn't have got to this point without communism, but now that they're modernized, they're better off without it.
You talked as if as soon as they left Communism there wasnt mass problems, starvation, recession ect..
China will be the same way. The chinese government is beginning to loosen some of their trade restrictions, I've heard. I would love to see the day when China gets out of communism, and I know it will happen some day.
What trade restrictions China will let nearly anyone invest in their country and build factories ect, if anything they are the ones who will be lossing markets in the near future, as EU trade restrictions increase, and China has to comply to Anti Piracy rules or face fines..
Once the world run's out of oil, we'll start have to use other recources. If its biofuel, that will help America a LOT since we produce more food than anyone else. Canada's recources are largly untapped, and I think they will do better as well.
For one Biofuels are made of evil.. they do not reduce CO2 emissions, if anything they make it worse, unless your in Brazil..you want me to waste 20 minutes finding resources proving it ill do it just ask!
2nd America consumers most of its food.. bunch of Fatties , if you want to look at the biggest net exporters look at Australia, see how when there were problems with fires and locusts there food prices shot up.. and i believe in Human enginuetly(i cant spell ) and Biogenomics to solve the oil problem..

My responses are in bold!

 

[Grimz101]

USA Today
Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with a variety of powerful weapons including Katyusha rockets, the No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq
Because i trust him so much?
ABC News
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.
For one i dont give US Senior Officials much credit.. for one they said Iraq had WMD when they even had weapon inspectors there.. and 2nd yes suree because Iran has no sympathists working in the factories, i mean USA recently accidently loaded Nuclear bombs into an aircraft mistaking them for another type of missile.. imagine if that aircraft fired its ammunitions in a live military simulation.. and you except Iran to transport the weapons for its hundreds of thousands in the army perfectly.. double standard..
CNN
I can say the same for this as the other two sources.. Yes im highly skeptical yet i use other data badly sourced with disputed neutrality to manipulate for my arguement sue me
I only used left-wing media sources to throw away any notion that it is a right wing conspiracy. If you didn't know Iran has been training and Arming Shiite Militias in Iraq then you should not be discussing World Politics.

I have no time left at the moment but I will return after work to combat all false statements and Propoganda being hurled at my great Country. BTW If you have watched Sicko and believe it then there may not be any hope for you. Hundreds of thousands of people have and continue to flee Cuba to come to the US. The proof is in the pudding.
Im sure thats to do with that fact they think they can earn more money in the US, and they use 'we feared our life as an excuse for visa, and i never watched sicko if that makes you feel better !
EDIT- One more thing, you can't have MAD deterrence if one country is so hell bent on destroying the other and fulfilling a prophecy. Read up on the Religion of your enemy, and yes he is your enemy too like it or not.
Although Shiites and Sunnis often battle against each other, as is currently the case in Iraq, Wagner noted common efforts among both groups of Muslims to destroy Israel, which is a critical part of Islam taking control in the world and thus ushering in the Mahdi.
And there was me thinking we survived the Cold war.. MAD works face it..
The same can be said for Christian extremists in the US.. i refuse to condemn an entire nation and declare war due to extremists.. assasinate them maybe, and use economic intentive to force their hand Yes.. but do an Iraq again.. no.. you do really view Islam as a religion of violence and that every Muslim wants to destroy Israel with nuclear bombs?

my responses in bold, quotes from news sources in italics

 

[Grimz101]

I would like to end on a more positive note. The reason America has the greatest economy in the world is our love for the free market. When it is trampled on by Gov't and its special interest groups then problems are created. Look at the oil crisis in america now. If we let the free market work and take the handcuffs off of the oil companies then the problem would be solved. Environmentalists while their heart is sometimes in the right place do far more harm than good to people. Governments should be a small arm of the people to uphold law and order and yes oversee businesses and corporations. It should not redistribute wealth and try to solve every problem known to man. In the end Governments have only added to the problems they try to fix. When you let the ingenuity of the empowered individuals loose thats when progress is made.

So you dont believe in free healthcare, and benefits to those on no income? Free market does not accurately describe America, infact its becoming worse as more protectionism measures are put in, to save jobs.. if you were truely capitalist you would ship all your jobs to other countries not try and save them.. look at the steel industry ect.. Orange Juice for example.. high tariffs and quotas exsists because South American orange juice and be provided at more competition prices than in Florida..
There was me thinking OPEC, and the falling Dollar was causing the high price, added to the fact the rise in price from the Indian and Chinise insatiable demand has been ofset by increases in exports by Russia(were 80% of the non opec oil comes from..) which just about covered the increases in demand by the two, and look they just hit problems increasing oil production!! and prices are rising..
Prices are rising not only in Oil but all goods like Gold, Steel, Wood, Food ect..

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The greatest economy in the world is one that is sustainable in the long run, and yours isn't. Sooner or later it's going to crash and burn as the huge debt load you're accumulating catches up to you. You're seeing a glimpse of it now with the mortage crisis you're facing. And it's all because of your love of the free market.

Are you kidding me?

China's manipulation of the exchange rate, our continued allowance of that, and the fed intentionally lowering interest rates to the point where speculative bubbles occurred are NOT examples of free market. It's an example of control being vested in organizations (aka the two governments in this case) who have some combination of incompetence and poor incentives (people in the government will still tend to take care of themselves!). Control that was mis-used to live beyond our means. That has nothing to do with free market, in fact this occurrence suggests we should have left the market alone to begin with...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And why is that? Because in the past it's been shown that a capitalist system unchecked is prone to abusing it's work force. It will force people to labour for long hours for as little financial reward as possible. Those labour rates and hours are in place because your ancestors fought to have a reasonable share of the massive profits the early industrialists were squeezing out of their labours. And the main reason why many third-world countries, and China, are able to make people work for next to nothing is because the labour movement in those areas hasn't become organized yet.

And your argument is totally ignoring the moral obligations of companies like Nike who are willing to turn a blind-eye to people being forced to work under the conditions they are, just so they can make as much profit as possible. I find it very hard to believe that Nike didn't know what the conditions were like for the workers in the factories that were producing their goods. They would have gone over on at least several occasions to tour the facilities before they even put ink to the paper to sign the deal, then they would have made more trips afterwards to coordinate production deadlines, delivery schedules etc. They knew full well that the people in those plants were being exploited and they didn't care because they were making lots of money from them. It was not until the public got wind of it that they did anything about it.



Now that's a surprise, people with a vested interest in the status quo saying that tragedy will befall if you make a change. Come here to Canada and talk to 8 doctors and they will tell you a completely different story. The treatment our citizens recieve is in no way lacking in quality. All citizens here can get access to the same treatments that only your richest can afford, and it's costing us less per capita than what you have to offer according to that Maine study.

I'm not familiar with the Canadian health care system, the extent its socialized, or how/who runs it. Government providing guidelines/regulations for something and then letting those with knowledge, such as a combination of businessmen/doctors run it, wouldn't be a bad idea. I've not seen such a system successfully managed by government before.

If hospitals actually had to compete and insurance companies (a major problem in the industry) weren't so damned oppressive, private hospitals with appropriate regulations should work just fine. Whatever...I'm not even going to pretend I have a solution for health care, or I'd probably be running for office myself.

Nike having moral responsibility, huh? Keep in mind we're talking about a corporation competing against other corporations for the most efficient product. They also have a moral duty to shareholders. Anyway, if their conduct elsewhere is so detrimental, governments there might want to work out the same kind of restrictions the US has (then free market would drive infrastructure improvements). Remember, we couldn't just jump out of those conditions either...but that didn't mean that people shouldn't have been working. If Nike gets people in there, it means its better than what people had before, even if only minimally. I'd say that's a very stopgap measure for both Nike and the countries this occurs in. Free market itself does not cause these conditions, however.

 

[Willem]

The reason Nazi Germany and there huge military rose, is because of the severe economic problems Germany was experiencing at the time.

The whole world was facing severe economic problems at the time, it was the Great Depression after all. But not every country used military means to get themselves out of their difficulties. There were alot of factors at work to bring about the rise of Nazism, not just economic issues.

If there's any number one reason China is doing so well, its because of the population.

They've also instituted alot of policies designed to stimulate their economy. Keep in mind that it wasn't too long ago that they functioned under the typical communist state controlled economy that you yourself said was inefficient. In a very short period of time they've transformed their backward economy into one of the world's powerhouses.

So you may ask, why isn't India also doing well also?

Well it is actually, it's poised to become a major economic power in it's own right. You just don't hear about their accomplishments as much. They're developing a very good high tech industry, which is why alot of American companies are out-sourcing their software/computer work to them. They're even in the process of developing their own space industry.

Hong Kong has a better economy than anywhere else in China, and it is the only place ran by free enterprise.

Hong Kong has been in the business of making money a lot longer than the rest of China has. They've had much more time to establish their connections and develop the infrastructure and systems that's needed.

China's techonlogy is far behind America's. They have no chance in the future, unless it goes way up.

Don't underestimate Chinese ingenuity. They've already put a man into space and they'll be sending a satellite to the moon soon, and possibly launching a manned mission there eventually. They're rapidly catching up to the US.

They way things are going, if anything, Japan will have the best military in the future.

They can't. The constitution that was created after WW2 forbids anything more than a military to be used for self-defence.

I think its only a matter of time before China gets out of communism.

They'll no doubt end up having more democratic policies, and they've obviously embraced a certain amount of capitalism. But that doesn't necessarily mean they'll abandon communism altogether. I see them eventually developing a hybrid system that incorporates elements of both.

Canada's recources are largly untapped, and I think they will do better as well.

Again you reveal your ignorance of Canada. We don't have much in the way of untapped resources anymore, especially when it comes to our farmland. That's not to say we have any shortages but what can be worked pretty much is at the moment. Our climate places alot of restrictions as to what can and can't be farmed. We still have things like mineral resources etc. that may still remain to be discovered but our agricultural land is pretty much all in use now, and has been for a long time. The only unused agricultural land left is pretty marginal.

 

[caketastydelish]

My responses are in bold!

You talk as if there wasn't starvation, poverty, etc while Russia was IN communism.

Your comment about the lightsabres and clones was just plain mean and starcastic.

We already have a few autopiloted planes and such. I think by 2050 the bulk of our vehicles will be like that. I'm not talking about a bunch of starwars robots doing the fighting for us, but I think you do get what I am saying. And as our combat vehicles keep getting better and better, I think we'll get to a point where infantry won't even stand a chance anymore!

I'd also like to point out that Germany is the biggest exporter. Australia is nowhere close.

Finally, I'd like to say that Japan does NOT have that big a military. Infact, there about 20,000 US marines stantioned in Japan the last time I checked. There military is pretty small. We have a deal with Japan. We protect them, and they limit there military to a pretty small number. That agreement has been made in world war 2 and has been in effect ever since.

 

[Willem]

Are you kidding me?

China's manipulation of the exchange rate, our continued allowance of that, and the fed intentionally lowering interest rates to the point where speculative bubbles occurred are NOT examples of free market. It's an example of control being vested in organizations (aka the two governments in this case) who have some combination of incompetence and poor incentives (people in the government will still tend to take care of themselves!). Control that was mis-used to live beyond our means. That has nothing to do with free market, in fact this occurrence suggests we should have left the market alone to begin with...

So what does all that have to do with the 500 million a year federal deficit, your trillion dollar national debt, and the huge amount of personal debt that American citizens owe?