RE: Vermont (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Vermont (11/2/2006 5:19:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Ladies and gentlemen, take a bow and tip your hat to Bernie Sanders, poised to become the first socialist senator in US history.



Just as long as he's a strict socialist and not a National Socialist or a Communist, he should be just fine.

And for the record, socialism is not about giving people an advantage, its about ensuring a level playing field and making sure corporations clean up their own messes. Giving people unfair advantages based on the most trivial garbage (ie their last name, skin color, religious faith, economic backgrounds) is the domain of the laissez-faire capitalistic conservatives.




UtopianRanger -> RE: Vermont (11/2/2006 6:39:44 PM)

quote:


While you're ridiculing the said person he's busy opposing the Patriot Act which allows the FBI to find out what books you're borrowing. He's also turning out to be a success in his stewardship as a mayor by developing run-down areas and making sure ordinary people can enjoy them. He's also pointing out  that $125 billion have been paid by the Government (tax-payers money) to corporations (e.g. IBM, Motorola etc) in tax-breaks.



Gent.....

I haven't read much about Bernie lately, but I'd be in favor of bringing back Pol Pot if he could rid us of the Patriot Act .

For me, civil liberties and the absence of an intrusive government, maintained by a self-aware populace, rise above all [;)]




 - R




Arpig -> RE: Vermont (11/2/2006 7:17:16 PM)

quote:

They keep putting Kerry and Kennedy into office.

I don't know popeye, that's not really a sign of intellectual weakness, think it through...if they elect them, they go away...all the way to Washington, and they only come back every 4 years...I think they are pretty shrewd. The roads have got to be a lot safer with Teddy-boy away down in DC. [:D]




Arpig -> RE: Vermont (11/2/2006 7:27:18 PM)

quote:

When did we get 52 states?


Damn people!!! SHHHHHHHHHHH!!! We haven't got the announcement typed up yet, give us another few years, we have to translate it into French, and then run by Royal Commission on Multi-Cultural Acceptability.

Sheesh, Damned Yanks, always in such a hurry, just because you have been waiting since 1815...I mean anything worth doing is worth doing right, and in both official languages




meatcleaver -> RE: Vermont (11/2/2006 11:57:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

In much of the world capitalism denies people the right of food and clothing in its exploitation and theft of natural resources that are under the feet of much of the poor..


MC,
Here's how you lose me. How does capitalism do what you say? By its very nature, capitalism requires a market. In the poorest places in the world, remedial capitalism is the only method of survival. The "right of food and clothing"? It's humane to have food and clothing and to offer it when you have more than you require. The capitalist US provides an example of that practice. More charity has its source in the US than any other country. Before you argue that point, the total contribution of US aid is not limited to the US government. Add the contributions of all private US citizens and US based charity organizations and I stand behind that statement.
Is food and clothing a right? If it is capitalism supplies the food and clothing. It doesn't deny it. If you say there shouldn't be a monetary, or goods, or resource exchange; you are back to socialism, and you've already discounted the ability for that to succeed.



Western capitalist governments aid and abet their corporations by bribing and bullying or allowing bribes and bullying of resource rich third world nations into releasing their resources for the west, without allowing third world economies to develop by imposing trading restrictions if they are hard faced enough to want to refine products from their raw materials in their own country and trade them. If bribes and bullying fail, that country suddenly becomes priah state number one and efforts are made to topple it or pen it in. A UN report backed by figures of the world bank said that poor people in resource rich third world countries on the whole fair worse than their counterparts in other third world countries.

The west also subsidizes agriculture and dumps its surplus produce on the third world and so undermines local economies in the third world, causing peasants to give up the land and make for the ghetoes in hope of work which is invariably not there because of western trading restrictions. The west then dumps food aid on them and pretends it is giving charity to these countries while in reality, they need charity because the west has destroyed their economies.

Iran has been occupied and governments toppled three times by rich countries so they could get at their resources while leaving the country underdeveloped. No wonder they are so paranoid of the west. Venezuela is now fast becoming a priah state because it refuses to kow tow to the west and wants to control its own resources. The difference now is that China is on the scene.

But I would no more want to live in a classical socialist country more than I would want to live in a laissez faire capitalist country and not even the US is that. The US is a welfare state for corporations, protecting its corporations from competition. It has the most regressive tax system in the western world, allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor. This is one reason I can't understand why so many Americans have bought into the no tax mantra, it rewards the rich for being rich. Nothing is that much better in Europe but at least the rich are expected to pay their fair amount of tax for living in a country that allows them to profit and accummulate wealth. Society is a two way street, it has nothing to do with free determination and not even the US system buys into that or we would see far more poverty in the US. It's a question of how a country decides where the balance is between rich and poor.

The west is relatively powerful and free enough to some extent to make its own decisions without malign powers exerting pressure, most third world countries aren't. There shouldn't really be any need for charity and aid handouts which have proved over and over again not to work. The west should put its money where its mouth is and practice free trade like it claims. That would be the best way to get the third world developed, though such a capitalist approach would have consequences back home which so called capitalist countries don't want. A MORE socialist (as opposed to a classical socialist approach) approach would regulate this change for the benefit of all and not just for the might is right gang in the west.

And anyway. The way we are using our resources now, capitalism or the world, can't continue as it has done. One is going to hit the buffers sooner or later.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 7:26:42 AM)

quote:

Western capitalist governments aid and abet their corporations by bribing and bullying or allowing bribes and bullying of resource rich third world nations into releasing their resources for the west, without allowing third world economies to develop by imposing trading restrictions if they are hard faced enough to want to refine products from their raw materials in their own country and trade them.


MC,
"Allowing bribes"? The 'west' laws and jurisdictions stop at their borders. If a bribe is given to an official of another country, third world or other, it's up to that countries own government to do something about it. If you are saying that the majority of the poverty is caused by the corruption of the leaders of the third world, that is a good point and I agree with you. But how does the west not "allowed third world economies to develop"? Do you have an example?

quote:

The west also subsidizes agriculture and dumps its surplus produce on the third world and so undermines local economies in the third world, causing peasants to give up the land and make for the ghettos in hope of work which is invariably not there because of western trading restrictions. The west then dumps food aid on them and pretends it is giving charity to these countries while in reality, they need charity because the west has destroyed their economies.


I couldn't agree more that farming subsidies are corporate welfare and should end quicker than any form of personal welfare. However, more subsides are paid to NOT grow crops or produce products such as milk, than are paid to produce more or a certain type of crop. Now you are referencing supply side economics. If you make more and produce it cheap, prices go down. If it cost less to produce it here than it does in the third world thats a product of their inefficiency. But there is a solution. Stop illegal immigration and you may get the price increase for US produced farm goods that would make the third world's product more competitive. I whole-heartedly support that position.

Trade restrictions? It's not evident in US stores. You'd have a much more difficult time finding a US label on a product than you would Mexico, China, Japan or a host of other countries. If you want a US made TV you'll have to buy an antique. Just like immigration laws, make the tariff laws reciprocal to the country of import origin and the playing field is equal. I doubt that would help the third world, but is your goal equal redistribution or the aforementioned "equal opportunity"?




farglebargle -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 7:29:03 AM)

WOW! Tariff's as REVENUE.

What a concept!





ToGiveDivine -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 7:31:43 AM)

Fast Reply

I would like to remind people that this is now my thread - I claimed in in Post #12

If you from out of the U.S.A., please following the instructions on Post #12 in order to contribute ;-)




farglebargle -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 7:40:15 AM)

Collarme features these wonderful things called PROFILES.

By READING a PROFILE you can LEARN if someone is, say, in ALBANY NY.

And thereby not waste anyone's time with a badly aimed snipe...




NorthernGent -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 7:44:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:


While you're ridiculing the said person he's busy opposing the Patriot Act which allows the FBI to find out what books you're borrowing. He's also turning out to be a success in his stewardship as a mayor by developing run-down areas and making sure ordinary people can enjoy them. He's also pointing out  that $125 billion have been paid by the Government (tax-payers money) to corporations (e.g. IBM, Motorola etc) in tax-breaks.



Gent.....

I haven't read much about Bernie lately, but I'd be in favor of bringing back Pol Pot if he could rid us of the Patriot Act .

For me, civil liberties and the absence of an intrusive government, maintained by a self-aware populace, rise above all [;)]


- R


UR, he's quite an interesting bloke. I read about him a while ago in a Tony Benn (a British socialist who was born into the aristocracy) book. There's a couple of articles on him in the Guardian.

Apparently, he has no money, no resources and no political backing/party. He certainly appreciates the people of the US and that's why he's campaiging against child poverty and the Patriot Act.

We could do with him over here.

Ultimately, people may see Socialism as unable to provide an efficient form of Government in the modern world. However, regardless of anyone's take on Socialism, he is doing his bit for the average person (in contrast to the two political parties that seem to be driven by the requirements of large corporations).

UR, I think we're both trying to get to the same place i.e. a nation governed for all of the people. We have a difference in opinion in how to get there (i.e. I believe Government has a big role to play in this) but that's just the strategy and small details  in the context of the wider picture.




ToGiveDivine -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 7:50:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Collarme features these wonderful things called PROFILES.

By READING a PROFILE you can LEARN if someone is, say, in ALBANY NY.

And thereby not waste anyone's time with a badly aimed snipe...


Collarchat has a wonderful feature called "Fast Reply" that isn't a real response to anyone - I even labeled my post (which was humor for you stick up the booty crowd) as such.

I'm glad I'm not in Albany as you are one of those that don't appear to look both ways before you drive through an intersection.




meatcleaver -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 7:55:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

MC,
"Allowing bribes"? The 'west' laws and jurisdictions stop at their borders.

Not in acts of terrorism that harms its citizens but does when in acts of financial criminality carried out by westerners that harm more vulnerable people in third world countries which have more severe effects than terrorism.

I couldn't agree more that farming subsidies are corporate welfare and should end quicker than any form of personal welfare. However, more subsides are paid to NOT grow crops or produce products such as milk, than are paid to produce more or a certain type of crop. Now you are referencing supply side economics. If you make more and produce it cheap, prices go down. If it cost less to produce it here than it does in the third world thats a product of their inefficiency. But there is a solution. Stop illegal immigration and you may get the price increase for US produced farm goods that would make the third world's product more competitive. I whole-heartedly support that position.

The best way to stop illegal immigration is to allow third world economies to develop and so making illegal entry into another country less attractive.

Trade restrictions? It's not evident in US stores. You'd have a much more difficult time finding a US label on a product than you would Mexico, China, Japan or a host of other countries. If you want a US made TV you'll have to buy an antique. Just like immigration laws, make the tariff laws reciprocal to the country of import origin and the playing field is equal. I doubt that would help the third world, but is your goal equal redistribution or the aforementioned "equal opportunity"?


The last WTT collapsed in rancour because the USA and the EU accused each other of refusing to move on trade restrictions. I forget the detail but it was the pot calling the kettle...etc. Though the countries to suffer were the third world countries.




NorthernGent -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 7:56:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

NG,
THANKS for the clarification.

Any time Merc, always a pleasure never a chore.

On the merits of what you say, I appreciate your envy for the good folk of Vermont and holding them up as a beacon of hope for the rest of the US. If you're planning relocation or travel there, take a warm sweater, its one of the tests they use to determine if you're smart enough to stay and be a citizen.

I've already tried to get in but failed on the "how many states are there in the US"? question at passport control. I gave them my answer and they pretty much just laughed in my face and sent me packing. They did point out that Texas would still take me regardless of my stupidity but I said it's Vermont or nothing so that was that.

In my youth during college I worked as an intern for Patrick Moynihan at the UN. He too was a beacon of principle and substance. He was the one bright spot in the bleak era known as the Jimmy Carter Presidency. It only took about a year in public office for his soul to be bought. I hope your man fairs better outside the snowy white hills of Vermont.

Well, time will tell. It's a fair point. Many of the current Labour Government were Socialists or at the very least Trade Unionists. They're all busy keeping their heads down while our Prime Minister embarrasses the nation with war-mongering policies. They've certainly sold their souls.



Yours Socialistly [;)]
 
Young Bernie




NorthernGent -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 8:21:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MizSuz

Haven't a clue if there is a correlation or coincidence between "most intelligent" and won't speculate in that regard.

I think it's important to note that Bernie Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist (not just a socialist), and there's a bit of a difference there.

Our federal government is bloated, fat and self-important.  Local democracies could be the way to go.  It seems to work for the folks in New Hampshire.  The advantage is that if you don't like the local politics you can always move somewhere that you do like the politics.


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Ladies and gentlemen, take a bow and tip your hat to Bernie Sanders, poised to become the first socialist senator in US history.

Did I read on another thread that the good people of Vermont are considered to be the most intelligent when compared with other US states?

Correlation or coincedence?



MizSuz, apologies for what probably seemed like a sharp reply yesterday. It wasn't intended that way.

The Vermont comment was tongue in cheek, when I read the post on the 50 states that had Vermont at the top Bernie Sanders came to mind - no harm in throwing it in. Anyway, we're supposed to be the uptight ones, what's going on? [;)]

Yes, you're right, he's an advocate of the Scandanavian model. Basically, he's looked at the levels of crime, poverty etc in Scandanavia and said that's the way to go if you have an interest in the well being of all of the people.





philosophy -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 8:45:55 AM)

"But how does the west not "allowed third world economies to develop"? Do you have an example? "

Mercnbeth........an example of this may be the subsidies paid to sugar cane farmers. At a recent GATT round the US opposed the subsidy paid to some of the poorest farmers in Africa by European countries for this crop while simultaneously hanging on to subsidies for some of the richest farmers in the world, which by a great conincidence were american.
i shall look for a link to back this up.





philosophy -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 9:06:01 AM)

......further to my last post. To my chagrin i can find no specific link about the issue i outlined. It was a story i was told some years back in the UK......it may or may not be true but i can find no proof of that specific charge. However, as i trolled through google and tried to make sense of WTO and GATT declarations and stuff i did find this document...
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/should.htm
.....it appears to outline some of the concerns developing countries have with the WTO, this quote appearing to concisely sum up its tone, "While not taking any actions to resolve the implementation issues, some trade observers and diplomats fear, the US and EC are having recourse to the dispute settlement processes to start disputes and get rulings in their favour."
......in this area it appears to me that the developed world is using the WTO, pretty much the only control on international capitalism and trade, to run roughshod over the developing world. Both the US and the EC are capable of running rings round the developing world by using the letter of the law, thus bypassing the spirit of it.
You asked for an example of how capitalism prevents economic development in the third world, hopefully this will satisfy that request.




NorthernGent -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 9:59:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine


  1. This is no longer your post - it's about Vermont, which is in the U.S. and since I'm a Yank, I am claiming it as our own.  (We will allow you to visit, but you will need a VISA, a background check and you will have to remove your shoes before going through security)



Whoaaa, hang on a minute here. Under English common law ownership rests with the founder. As there has been no exchange of title deeds, or contracts signed, young Bernie remains the sole proprietor of this thread.

Now, I'm a reasonable man but life is short and time is money so if you want this thread it will cost you, and dearly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine

But this doesn't mean I don't luv ya ;-P



TGD, I can feel the love and rest assured it is a two-way street but will the love still be there when I pitch up in Indiana, run for senator and turn the place into the People's Socialist Republic of New Mancunia?  I know you'll vote for me. Life is going to be one big, miserable reign of Socialist terror. We'll have a ball. No more fun, no more happiness - just you, me and the rest of Indiana wallowing in misery.
 
On the plus side, and just so you appreciate there's no hard feelings, I'm prepared to let you keep one of the mid-wests' favourite hobbies - the one where you get on a cow and the owner takes you for a walk down the street, rodeo is it called?
 




NorthernGent -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 10:09:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


It is? That's what they are teaching in the UK? I thought only US schools re-wrote PC history texts. I, sorry I must claim a complete need for re-education. Do they have a camp for that? When was "equal opportunity" a part of socialism? There is equal opportunity in China? Was there in the USSR? Cuba-is that the socialist state of "equal opportunity"? 



China and the USSR were never communist/socialist regimes. They gave themselves the banner, and the West has been happy to reinforce it, as a symbol of national unity. If you're aware of the theory that underpins Socialism then you'll also be aware that the USSR and China were no more than totalitarian regimes that were actually far more fascist in outlook than socialist.




NorthernGent -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 10:16:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Many Americans on CM complain about the power of corporations to sack workers and out source production to cheaper countries where the work force is exploited and thus denying Americans jobs. They are truely on the path to classical socialism

Quite right, aiming to protect workers rights by denying foreign competition is nailed on Socialism. Liberal and Conservative ideals have traditionally been centred around competition. Thus, protection of national workers' rights is blatantly at odds with Liberal and Conservative ideals. In fact, the essence of liberalism is free-market economics.

Karl Marx wrote about theories and practical aspects of socialism and is definitely worth a read if one can set aside ones prejudices and objectively give his reasoning a chance. The world has moved on and a lot of what he wrote is now redundant but much of it is still relevent and worth a read. There are definitely some cherries to be picked out of his work.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Vermont (11/3/2006 10:19:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
......in this area it appears to me that the developed world is using the WTO, pretty much the only control on international capitalism and trade, to run roughshod over the developing world. Both the US and the EC are capable of running rings round the developing world by using the letter of the law, thus bypassing the spirit of it.
You asked for an example of how capitalism prevents economic development in the third world, hopefully this will satisfy that request.

philosophy,
Although on its surface I don't see your reference being the smoking gun for unfair trade practices of western countries, between the lines it speaks volumes. Focus on the key words of the WTO statement; "letter of the law"; within those words the real evil is disclosed.

Every law, every tariff, every regulation must run the gauntlet of review by people whose only function is to determine a way to subvert its intent. These people are not necessarily always capitalists. They don't produce, they don't build, and they don't work for the betterment of man. Their function is to confuse, subvert, and exploit. Even when representing indefensible evil they rationalize or at the very least filibuster until the frustration level reaches a point where the focus on the original evil is replaced by a desire to bring the situation to a conclusion. These people are called, lawyers.

It is why every good intended act is rewarded by litigation. They cause companies to become morally bankrupt. By the time laws are passed with the best intentions, lawyers have figured a way to circumvent it. They calculated the cost of human life in dollar terms, determine the cost of life, and add it as a line item to the financial statement. When the cost of that life becomes too expensive in one country, they move the operation to a place where it is not as expensive. A battle on civil matters isn’t a matter of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Its winner is determined by who has the larger legal expense war chest. Go to legal ‘war’ with Microsoft, Disney, or any large corporation and you can be ‘right’ without a doubt; but you run the gauntlet of the company attorneys, the local officials contributed to by the corporations, the judges with friends on the Board of Directors of the corporations. Considering that before you go in, and you won’t enter that battle. If you don’t consider it, be assured you will be enlightened by the end of your first meeting with the other side.

Are there “good works” done by lawyers? NO. They would like to say there are, but their “good works” are a function of trying to address “bad works” usually done or put in place by other lawyers. Get rid of them all and the necessity of the “good works” goes away. When they stand up to say; “somebody has to represent and protect the ‘rights’ or someone like say, Jeffrey Dahmer, what they really are doing is trying to find a law or an excuse to protect him from the consequences of his action. The civil “good works” done have eliminated many small businesses, ended the ability for a US based company to make such things like small aircraft, and closed large companies such as Monsanto. Each of us pays dearly in the cost of every product and service we buy for the “good works” done by lawyers. Lawyers have created a US population who sees two paths to a windfall; winning the lottery, and being in an accident to have a change at the ‘lawsuit lottery’. You’re children aren’t leaning anything in public schools, but they can’t play tag in some cases, because of the fear of litigation. We in LA contribute a larger percentage of our tax dollars on civil lawsuits and settlements than we do for any other government service or social program including the school system.

Is it a coincidence that the vast majority of elected officials are lawyers? If there is an international conspiracy, it’s being run by lawyers.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875