More Peace and Love From Allah

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
More Peace and Love From Allah

Bomb plot targets US Christmas tree lighting

November 28, 2010 - 10:35AM  

A Somali-born teenager was arrested in an undercover operation on charges that he tried to detonate a van that he thought was filled with explosives at a Portland, Oregon, Christmas tree-lighting ceremony.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, obtained what he believed to be the bomb from undercover FBI employees, according to court papers filed with his arrest yesterday.

The public was never in danger, a Justice Department statement said.‘‘I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured,’’ Mohamud allegedly told undercover FBI agents, according to an affidavit filed in support of the arrest.

At another point, he allegedly said, ‘‘It’s gonna be a fireworks show’’ and ‘‘a spectacular show.’’

Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen and resident of Corvallis, Oregon, told undercover FBI agents that he had been thinking of committing violent jihad since he was 15 years old, and that he had written for an online publication supporting such actions, according to the affidavit.

Counterterrorism officials, citing a series of cases in recent years, say they are increasingly concerned about American citizens planning terror attacks in the U.S. because those plots are difficult to detect and prevent.

Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, was convicted of a May 1 attempt to detonate a car bomb in New York’s Times Square.

Mohamud is charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. He is scheduled to make his first court appearance in federal court in Portland on Nov. 29.

In August 2009, Mohamud was in contact by e-mail with an associate outside the U.S. who authorities suspect of being involved in terrorism, according to the Justice Department.

They allegedly discussed the possibility of his traveling to Pakistan to ‘‘engage in violent jihad,’’ the Justice Department statement said.

Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in June contacted Mohamud under the guise of being affiliated with the associate, according to the arrest affidavit. He told them he wanted to stage an explosion and needed help, according to the Justice Department.

He allegedly told an undercover agent that he wanted to attack a ‘‘huge mass’’ of people ‘‘in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays.’’

He said he wanted to carry out the attack in Oregon because ‘‘nobody ever thinks about it.’’

Earlier this month, Mohamud and the undercover FBI agents went to a remote location in Lincoln County, Oregon and detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run, according to the affidavit.

Mohamud mailed bomb components to undercover FBI agents, who he thought were assembling the device, according to the affidavit.

Mohamud told the FBI agents that he thought it was ‘‘awesome’’ when people had to jump from the World Trade Center in the Sept. 11 attacks, and said he wanted to see body parts and blood after setting off his bomb, according to the affidavit.

Before the planned bombing at Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse Square, Mohamud put on a white robe and a white and red headdress, along with a camouflage jacket and read a written statement in front of a video camera, the affidavit said.

‘‘For as long as you threaten our security, your people will not remain safe,’’ he said, according to the affidavit.

Yesterday, Mohamud and an undercover agent allegedly drove a white van near the courthouse.

The fake bomb, constructed by FBI technicians, included six 55-gallon drums containing inert materials and diesel fuel, according to the affidavit.

Mohamud tried to detonate the bomb using a cell phone, according to the affidavit.

He was taken into custody soon after, about 5.40p.m. Portland time, about 10 minutes after the tree lighting was scheduled to begin.

As he was being transported, he allegedly yelled ‘‘Allahu Akhbar,’’ or ‘‘God is great’’ in Arabic, and began kicking the FBI agents.

Mohamud took classes at Oregon State University in Corvallis starting in late 2009 and he withdrew last month, said Todd Simmons, a university spokesman.

Mohamud faces life in prison if convicted.

‘‘The threat was very real,’’ said Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon, in the Justice Department statement.

‘‘Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale.’’

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I read that this morning and

I read that this morning and -- what an idiot. 

The tree lighting they are talking about takes place in a space that is one city block in size.  This city block was converted to an amphitheater - it's rather ugly.  But local bands and street performers hang out with the homeless, and occasionally they have special events there.  The tree lighting thing is usually pretty crowded - all the christmas lights downtown go on at the same time.  Very pretty.

So a bomb there would have been pretty nasty.  Glad I don't go to those sort of entertainments.

There is a fairly large Somali immigrant population in town.  They keep to themselves.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
A waste of talent, if you

A waste of talent, if you ask me. I saw his picture on the news and thought, 'This kid would make a great runway model'. Could have been a millionaire. Now, he's going to be real popular in prison.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 And once again, we have a

 

And once again, we have a male from the middle east between the ages of 18 and 45 who is a clear danger to America.

 

Yet we are made safe because I can't bring the half bottle of water that I bought inside the security screen on an airplane. Granny can't bring her knitting needles and the TSA has to be able to determine if you have been circumcised.

 

That crap makes us safer than checking the very people who might be worth looking at.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Terrorism is by far caused

Terrorism is by far caused by injustice. There are other factors, but injustice is the greatest. Nobody can win against terrorism, because everyone who feels injustice can become a terrorist. Terrorism can appear in any country. That is, let's say, most of the world's population, including some in America itself. More fighting, more terrorism.

Let's face it, almost everyone hates America. America-hating must be globally one of most popular chitchat topics. In my country most of young people hate America. (old people hate Russia) There's a plenty of reasons for that. You know, the invasions, militarism, poculture, consumerism, Wall Street, and so on. No country is flawless, I know. The reason for hating is that America does everything bad on grand scale and on territory of other countries. No country in the world invaded so many other countries and started so many wars. What do you think, that terrorists are brought by a stork?

I know a girl who herself committed a "terroristic act" of attacking McDonald's and a wagon of Coca Cola, out of hate for american consumerism. And that's just a moderate case in small peaceful country in central Europe. Imagine how bad it must be to the south, in middle East and totalitarian regimes.

Americans should think of this film quote:
Yes, there is a world out there, and even if you decide you don't want to meet it, it's still going to hit you right in the face. Best you start thinking about the world right now, and what the world means to you. What does the world mean to you?

A source of oil? Wrong answer.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Terrorism is

Luminon wrote:

Terrorism is by far caused by injustice. There are other factors, but injustice is the greatest. Nobody can win against terrorism, because everyone who feels injustice can become a terrorist. Terrorism can appear in any country. That is, let's say, most of the world's population, including some in America itself. More fighting, more terrorism.

Let's face it, almost everyone hates America. America-hating must be globally one of most popular chitchat topics. In my country most of young people hate America. (old people hate Russia) There's a plenty of reasons for that. You know, the invasions, militarism, poculture, consumerism, Wall Street, and so on. No country is flawless, I know. The reason for hating is that America does everything bad on grand scale and on territory of other countries. No country in the world invaded so many other countries and started so many wars. What do you think, that terrorists are brought by a stork?

I know a girl who herself committed a "terroristic act" of attacking McDonald's and a wagon of Coca Cola, out of hate for american consumerism. And that's just a moderate case in small peaceful country in central Europe. Imagine how bad it must be to the south, in middle East and totalitarian regimes.

Americans should think of this film quote:
Yes, there is a world out there, and even if you decide you don't want to meet it, it's still going to hit you right in the face. Best you start thinking about the world right now, and what the world means to you. What does the world mean to you?

A source of oil? Wrong answer.

You know what? I do my share of Bush-Big Business-Pollution-bashing, but, when someone from a foreign country does it, it raises my hackles.

Yes, the US is guilty of...a lot of things BUT, imo, we are in many ways far better than many other countries.

The EPA, for example, although it is often bound up by red tape, has done plenty to keep this country and it's citizens safe. One reason many Big Business leave our soil is so they can avoid costly environmental regulations by moving to countries who are more interested in commercialism than ecology. Pollution in China and India is wayyyyy out of control.

As for terrorists hating the US for commercialism - hell, don't buy the crap and go after YOUR OWN  governments for allowing it in your country. Commercialism is just like illegal drugs - if there were no demand for it, it wouldn't exist.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Luminon

Sandycane wrote:

Luminon wrote:

Terrorism is by far caused by injustice. There are other factors, but injustice is the greatest. Nobody can win against terrorism, because everyone who feels injustice can become a terrorist. Terrorism can appear in any country. That is, let's say, most of the world's population, including some in America itself. More fighting, more terrorism.

Let's face it, almost everyone hates America. America-hating must be globally one of most popular chitchat topics. In my country most of young people hate America. (old people hate Russia) There's a plenty of reasons for that. You know, the invasions, militarism, poculture, consumerism, Wall Street, and so on. No country is flawless, I know. The reason for hating is that America does everything bad on grand scale and on territory of other countries. No country in the world invaded so many other countries and started so many wars. What do you think, that terrorists are brought by a stork?

I know a girl who herself committed a "terroristic act" of attacking McDonald's and a wagon of Coca Cola, out of hate for american consumerism. And that's just a moderate case in small peaceful country in central Europe. Imagine how bad it must be to the south, in middle East and totalitarian regimes.

Americans should think of this film quote:
Yes, there is a world out there, and even if you decide you don't want to meet it, it's still going to hit you right in the face. Best you start thinking about the world right now, and what the world means to you. What does the world mean to you?

A source of oil? Wrong answer.

You know what? I do my share of Bush-Big Business-Pollution-bashing, but, when someone from a foreign country does it, it raises my hackles.

Yes, the US is guilty of...a lot of things BUT, imo, we are in many ways far better than many other countries.

The EPA, for example, although it is often bound up by red tape, has done plenty to keep this country and it's citizens safe. One reason many Big Business leave our soil is so they can avoid costly environmental regulations by moving to countries who are more interested in commercialism than ecology. Pollution in China and India is wayyyyy out of control.

Yes, and how is that a good thing?  The correct tendency would be to keep the economy inlands and limit the import to protect it. Now there is not much american economy in the state, and people have nowhere to work. Anyone who would want to work, has to compete with millions of chinese guys who can work for a bowl of rice per day. Hell, nobody can compete with that.
This is why commercialism is evil, it forces the weak to compete against the strong.

Sandycane wrote:
As for terrorists hating the US for commercialism - hell, don't buy the crap and go after YOUR OWN  governments for allowing it in your country. Commercialism is just like illegal drugs - if there were no demand for it, it wouldn't exist.

Yeah, the drug dealer's excuse Sticking out tongue
Hell, my own government got stupefied by "freedom" after the fall of communism in 89. There is a strong mafia here who knew in advance of the revolution and of dividing the states in 93. There was and still is some heavy-duty corruption, frauds, asset stripping and piratization... I mean, privatization. People dumbed by the marvels of West sold out their own country. Standards and restrictions got dropped, when it comes to consumerism, this country is the trash bin of Europe. Traditional firms here are sold abroad. For example, the city of Karlsbad all belongs to Russians. America is strong, it can move its corporations abroad, but the same model in a weak country will cause foreign corporations to move in!


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Yes, and how

Luminon wrote:
 Yes, and how is that a good thing?  The correct tendency would be to keep the economy inlands and limit the import to protect it. Now there is not much american economy in the state, and people have nowhere to work. Anyone who would want to work, has to compete with millions of chinese guys who can work for a bowl of rice per day. Hell, nobody can compete with that.
This is why commercialism is evil, it forces the weak to compete against the strong.

Sandycane wrote:
As for terrorists hating the US for commercialism - hell, don't buy the crap and go after YOUR OWN  governments for allowing it in your country. Commercialism is just like illegal drugs - if there were no demand for it, it wouldn't exist.

Yeah, the drug dealer's excuse Sticking out tongue
Hell, my own government got stupefied by "freedom" after the fall of communism in 89. There is a strong mafia here who knew in advance of the revolution and of dividing the states in 93. There was and still is some heavy-duty corruption, frauds, asset stripping and piratization... I mean, privatization. People dumbed by the marvels of West sold out their own country. Standards and restrictions got dropped, when it comes to consumerism, this country is the trash bin of Europe. Traditional firms here are sold abroad. For example, the city of Karlsbad all belongs to Russians. America is strong, it can move its corporations abroad, but the same model in a weak country will cause foreign corporations to move in!

Ummm, and this is all to blame on the big bad US of A? I don't think so. ALL governments of the world are corrupt in some form or another and it's the People who suffer. You can't blame the US for the troubles in your country any more than I can blame China for ours. All of these government are equally guilty of screwing up the lives of the 'common folk'.

Take the Muslim terrorists for example... like this new guy who said he 'hates America'. Why the hell was he living here in the first place? Instead, he should have been home trying to reform his own government.

You don't go to someone else's home and tell them how to live and if you don't like what's going on there, you leave...you don't blow up their house.

Some people are just plain STUPID.  Those who claim to have god on their side are the worst of all.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote: You don't

Sandycane wrote:

You don't go to someone else's home and tell them how to live and if you don't like what's going on there, you leave...you don't blow up their house.

Some people are just plain STUPID.  Those who claim to have god on their side are the worst of all.

 

yeah, like whoever did this:

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2010/11/early_morning_fire_reported_at_islamic_center_in_corvallis.html wrote:

Update: Fire was intentionally set at Islamic Center in Corvallis where alleged bomb plot suspect attended

Published: Sunday, November 28, 2010, 7:39 AM     Updated: Sunday, November 28, 2010, 9:05 AM Molly Hottle, The Oregonian

A fire reported early this morning at the

Salman Alfarisi Islamic Center where Portland bomb plot suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud sometimes attended is being called arson.

The fire was reported at about 2:15 a.m. today. Corvallis Fire Department spokeswoman Carla Pusateri said the fire was intentionally set, but would not say what led investigators to the conclusion.

Pusateri said a police officer on duty spotted the fire at 2:15 a.m. and called for help.

"It was discovered much sooner than it could have been," she said.

More The Oregonian's continuing coverage of the Portland bombing plot and Mohamed Mohamud

Islamic Center leader Imaam Yosof Wanly said he doesn't believe the fire is a reflection on the community of Corvallis where he has lived for 24 years.

"I know people here know the true reality of the Muslim community here," he said. "It's a sad situation."

Wanly condemned the alleged plot by the 19-year-old Oregon State University student, stating he "denounced the actions of Mohamed Mohamud."

Mohamud was not a regular attendee of the mosque,

but he came once or twice a month since arriving on campus, according to Wanly.  

The fire was contained to one room in the mosque, an office, which was 80 percent damaged and there were no injuries. It took firefighters about 10 minutes to put out the fire.

Early Sunday morning, a pile of charred items were placed on a green tarp near where the office was located on the first floor of the northwest side of the building. There is no sign on the two-story, white stucco structure that states the name of the center.

 

This whole thing reminds me of the terrorists during the late 60s early 70s in the US.  You remember?  Selective service office burnings?  Rioting and smashing businesses?  Bombings?  The terrorists were white kids from middle/upper class homes usually.  There is a thread around here about a study of the current crop of terrorists.  Same demographic, different countries.

This kid was brought to the US as a small child and was a naturalized citizen.  His family is probably more upset than we are.

Luminon is right for the most part.  The US is usual target of the hatred and fear we hear about in the news.  Don't take it personally - if it wasn't the US it would be some other country.  Sort of like Great Britain in the 19th century - they were on top, so they were the target of hatred.  Once the US crashes, people will stop terrorizing us and go terrorize the new top dog.  (The US will not be the world's superpower forever - as nothing lasts forever.  Change is the only constant.)

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Ummm, and

Sandycane wrote:

Ummm, and this is all to blame on the big bad US of A? I don't think so. ALL governments of the world are corrupt in some form or another and it's the People who suffer. You can't blame the US for the troubles in your country any more than I can blame China for ours. All of these government are equally guilty of screwing up the lives of the 'common folk'.

Well, obviously that was a Muslim guy and everyone knows that America attacks Muslims. He didn't even have to be from Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran, just attacking Muslim countries is enough, just like Texasans would get outraged by attack on Washington.

 I just say that America is the one that exports its own corruption abroad the most. Domestic corruption is tolerable, but the invading corruption must be delivered back where it came from. Terrorists of any nation will gladly throw a bag of dynamite on top of the delivery. And americans wonder why they're attacked for no reason, after all, who's the best country in the world?

People would love America (again once more), if America would respect the concept of a state border like other countries. I wonder how Mr Obama would like a foreign secret prison, missile base or army on his back yard.
Hell, it even gets into cultural loathing. Local people who had an experience with common Americans usually tell long stories how crazy these people are... Of course, all nations have their characteristic vices, but american ones are the most visible. Hell, they're even proud of them because America is on the top today and does not yet pay for its mistakes too much. Just look at the action film production, 4th july, stuff blown up, people shot, action hero mows foreign baddies single-handed, flags everywhere, saluting soldiers...
Just think how it looks to the young local generation that watches and loves Zeitgeist, Zeitgeist Addendum, Money as Debt, Michael Moore, and demonstrates against american military base in Brdy mountains. The amount of people who can feel a sympathy or understanding to terrorists attacking America still increases.

No, people will not hate a new world superpower, if that superpower will consist of all nations' equal representatives... sort of like United Nations with balls.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3249
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Off Topic on Drug Dealers

Luminon wrote:

Yeah, the drug dealer's excuse Sticking out tongue

 

Freedom in of itself  is not what keeps the drug dealers in business, in my opinion. Keeping certain things illegal is what keeps the drug dealers in business. For every law enacted that the government knows can not be totally suppressed (like marijuana laws here) all that the governments have done is create a new industry for the criminals to operate. I personally do not smoke pot and have not smoked pot in probably 20 to 25 years, but alot of these laws involving victimless crimes is utterly useless.

Look at how well that Prohibition did in the early 1900's here in the states. Prohibition only made the mafia ultra-millionaires in the distribution of liquor and it did not curb the rate of alcoholism one bit.

I know that this is completely off topic to the discussion at hand, but I wanted to point that out.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:No, people

Luminon wrote:

No, people will not hate a new world superpower, if that superpower will consist of all nations' equal representatives... sort of like United Nations with balls.

<convulses in fit of painful laughter>

You don't seriously believe any of that zeitgeist crap, do you?

Step 1. Talk outdated and historically disproven socialist nonsense.

Step 2, ??????

Step 3. Utopia!

 

Bwahahahahaha!

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote: Luminon

Desdenova wrote:
Luminon wrote:
No, people will not hate a new world superpower, if that superpower will consist of all nations' equal representatives... sort of like United Nations with balls.

<convulses in fit of painful laughter>

You don't seriously believe any of that zeitgeist crap, do you?

Step 1. Talk outdated and historically disproven socialist nonsense.

Step 2, ??????

Step 3. Utopia!

Bwahahahahaha!

You don't know what is socialism. Certainly not communism, that was a kind of state capitalism. It was better with former welfare states, Sweden, Norway, Denmark... But the technology wasn't good enough to make this system flexible and light. Germany after WW2 got it right. You need a well working capitalistic economy to pay for the expenses of socialism Smiling But nowadays it should be possible to cut welfare state bureaucratic expenses to minimum, thanks to Internet, electronic currency and registration, and so on. The technologic standards of Jacque Fresco are a good example of simplifying the production.

Anyway, all experts since WW2 knew, that our economy is doomed. Pure capitalism is a nonsense. Sustainable growth is a nonsense. GDP growth, increasing profit forever, making money from nothing, all this is bullshit. Nothing in economy can grow forever, because it's just a bubble that will burst. Capitalism only works as long as as it can expand, that needs new areas to conquer, new forests to cut down, new fields to mine. Once all land belongs to someone, there's a problem. No more free resources, you've got to invade countries with military force. (Hear that, America?) Hell, capitalism would get bankrupt if it would really pay for the work it requires - and that includes  the work of women who stay at home and support the family of working men.

The current system is unsustainable, because it is not designed for sustainability. It is designed for scarcity, consumption, expansion and profit. That was good enough for medieval times, but is totally outdated today. Scarcity gets to the extreme with more than 3 billion people poor, consumption is extreme, there is nowhere to expand and all the profit ends up with the nobs. This can work no longer, no matter how many hundreds of billions banks create by electronic loans from the governments.
It is no problem to design a better system, with different objectives. What we currently have is dystopia, things are done wrong for the purpose of personal profit. I just want a rational, working system that has different objectives, and therefore does right what today's system does wrong. That is a justifiable demand and reasonable plan.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:No, people

Luminon wrote:

No, people will not hate a new world superpower, if that superpower will consist of all nations' equal representatives... sort of like United Nations with balls.

What your talking about would likely involve the nations involved giving up some of their sovereignty.  Do you think they would be willing to do that?  If so under what conditions or for what purposes?


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:You don't know

Luminon wrote:

You don't know what is socialism. Certainly not communism, that was a kind of state capitalism.

Nah, communism was very much against capitalism. Maybe you're thinking of Soviet communism, which in effect was like one gigantic industry.

Luminon wrote:

Pure capitalism is a nonsense. Sustainable growth is a nonsense. GDP growth, increasing profit forever, making money from nothing, all this is bullshit.

I emphasized the strawman. No one who advocates capitalism/free market with at least a rudimentary understanding of economics is claiming that. Losses are just as much a part of business strategy as profits, and to say that even in a completely free market profits would keep increasing is nonsense. People take risks and make bad investments and mistakes about as often as others make good investments and get things right. Sometimes it's about timing, general conditions, and other external factors as well.

Luminon wrote:

The current system is unsustainable, because it is not designed for sustainability. It is designed for scarcity, consumption, expansion and profit.

I'll agree with that, though.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: You don't

Luminon wrote:

 You don't know what is socialism. Certainly not communism, that was a kind of state capitalism. It was better with former welfare states, Sweden, Norway, Denmark...

You're kidding, right? First of all, communism and socialism are virtually indistinguishable. But what your cult leader Jacque is calling for is communism at any rate, as he proposes the redistribution of wealth. In effect forcing political control on others through economic means.

Luminon wrote:
But the technology wasn't good enough to make this system flexible and light. Germany after WW2 got it right.

Ummm, the Marshall Plan where America spent billions to rebuild a war torn Europe, including Germany? That wasn't exactly Germany getting it right, nor did it work out all that well. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul is a poor repair job.

Luminon wrote:
You need a well working capitalistic economy to pay for the expenses of socialism Smiling 

Which sadly you aren't going to get.

Luminon wrote:
But nowadays it should be possible to cut welfare state bureaucratic expenses to minimum, thanks to Internet, electronic currency and registration, and so on. The technologic standards of Jacque Fresco are a good example of simplifying the production.

Dude, the words 'bureaucratic' and 'expenses to a minimum' are mutually exclusive. Bureaucracies don't tend to comprehend restraint, especially when they can remain faceless. This is exactly what the internet promotes. And how exactly is the internet going to make things better? You don't see much improvement of health care from it. You don't see it doing a lot to expedite grain shipments to drought ridden areas. All it does is facilitate communication. It does virtually nothing in terms of resource allocation.

Luminon wrote:
Anyway, all experts since WW2 knew, that our economy is doomed. Pure capitalism is a nonsense.

Really? All experts? Every single last one of them? Do you realize just how cultish that statement sounds?

Luminon wrote:
Sustainable growth is a nonsense. GDP growth, increasing profit forever, making money from nothing, all this is bullshit. Nothing in economy can grow forever, because it's just a bubble that will burst. Capitalism only works as long as as it can expand, that needs new areas to conquer, new forests to cut down, new fields to mine. Once all land belongs to someone, there's a problem.

And you accuse me of not understanding socialism? Capitalism works as long as there is supply and demand. Growth is desirable, and due to human greed a recurring theme. But numerous mom & pop operations have functioned fine for centuries without expanding. However, you are biting yourself in the ass here. Out of one side of your mouth you are saying that your welfare state has to have a thriving capitalist base in order to function. The other side is saying that capitalism, and therefore the welfare state, is doomed to failure. Make up your mind. Only a socialist would be foolish enough to try and have their cake and eat it too.

Luminon wrote:
No more free resources, you've got to invade countries with military force. (Hear that, America?) Hell, capitalism would get bankrupt if it would really pay for the work it requires - and that includes  the work of women who stay at home and support the family of working men.

Hear that Pakistan? (India 1999). Hear that Israel? (Gaza 2008). Hear that Ethiopia? (Somalia 2006). Hear that African Union? (Anjouan 2008). Hear that Georgia? (South Ossetia 2008) Hear that Russia? (Georgia 2008)

Luminon wrote:
The current system is unsustainable, because it is not designed for sustainability. It is designed for scarcity, consumption, expansion and profit. That was good enough for medieval times, but is totally outdated today. Scarcity gets to the extreme with more than 3 billion people poor, consumption is extreme, there is nowhere to expand and all the profit ends up with the nobs. This can work no longer, no matter how many hundreds of billions banks create by electronic loans from the governments.

I actually agree. The current social state of the world is built upon outdated practices. This is not an economic failure. This is a failure of society to wake up and smell the roses. Those billions of poor people need to understand that there are not now, and never will be, enough resources to keep feeding the hungry mouths they churn out. They need to understand that birth control and education are their quickest, surest way out of poverty. But for the most part, they, like you, have fallen sway to some cult that makes empty promises and keeps them bound to ignorance an poverty. Changing the way people accumulate wealth isn't the answer. Prying open their ignorant eyes is.


Luminon wrote:
It is no problem to design a better system, with different objectives. What we currently have is dystopia, things are done wrong for the purpose of personal profit. I just want a rational, working system that has different objectives, and therefore does right what today's system does wrong. That is a justifiable demand and reasonable plan.
 

Uh huh, yeah. Unfortunately, your cult leader proposes to make things worse, not better. The idiot claims that the earth has an abundance of resources and energy, and wants to parcel them out fairly to the poor, ignorant breeders to help them churn out more poor ignorant breeders. The problem is, resources and energy are scarce and growing scarcer, not abundant. His proposal would deplete our resources at an accelerated rate,  reducing us all to the stone ages in 20 years instead of 50. Brilliant!

Look dude, the human race in general is stupid. Monumentally, tragically, unrepentantly stupid. They don't know how to manage their own resources. Do you really think that giving them more is going to make their lives better? Hell, most American's would find a way to convert their allocations to lifetime passes for Nascar events!

I bought my first car at age 16. I worked washing dishes, hauling hay, and building fence to get it. I paid my way through community college by working as a mason's assistant 12 hours a day on Saturdays and Sundays. I used that quick education as a springboard, continuing to educate myself and work. I have accumulated wealth at a more or less steady rate for damned near 30 years, and no secret cabal of Greedites showed up on my door to put a stop to it.  I worked for what I have, and I worked damn hard. Do you really think that I would just hand over what I have earned to feed a bunch of primitives living in a desert that refuse to pick up their clay pots and hike 50 miles north to live in a lush rain forest because their culture tells them that where they are squatting is their land? Fuck that! I would sooner convert all of my assets into cash and burn it in the fireplace than to send one single penny of my money to someone too stupid to try and better himself. In fact, I had rather convert it all into sardines and feed it to the fucking seals out on the ice than to give it to some faceless bureaucracy that thinks it knows better how to allocate resources than I do. And I had damned rather blow it on caviar and champagne in one night of debauchery than hand it over to a socialist eco cult that is too stupid to even grasp simple concepts like there being too little arable land to feed billions indefinitely.

Fix our education system. Capitalism works pretty damn good even with morons involved in it. Think of how it will prosper if you educate the morons. And while you are at it, do something about the population. I decided at an early age to not further burden the world with children. That is commitment. But here you are, spending what, $19.95 a month on internet when you could use that money to feed 50 starving Africans? WTF?  Put your money where your mouth is, and have your cult leader do the same. Do you think those fucking scale models he has blown thousands on are making a difference?  The guy is no better than a fucking televangelist, offering vacuous promises of a greater tomorrow if only you send him money today.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Luminon

RatDog wrote:

Luminon wrote:

No, people will not hate a new world superpower, if that superpower will consist of all nations' equal representatives... sort of like United Nations with balls.

What your talking about would likely involve the nations involved giving up some of their sovereignty.  Do you think they would be willing to do that?  If so under what conditions or for what purposes?

Yes, some part of sovereignity would be lost, but specially the sovereignity to wage war against another nation. No matter if military or economic. Most of nations would actually gain sovereignity. Specially those currently lost in debts to rich states, ransomed by commodity prices, occupied by foreign army, and so on. There is an economic warfare going on and a lot of small wars. Economic attacks can seriously damage weaker countries. Food market is a good example, when international traders set the price of food, small countries go into chaos, riots and anarchy.
The United Nations model is the correct one, because it is not a world government, it brings up problems for mutual discussion and solving between sovereign states.

 

 

El-ahrairah wrote:
Luminon wrote:
You don't know what is socialism. Certainly not communism, that was a kind of state capitalism.

Nah, communism was very much against capitalism. Maybe you're thinking of Soviet communism, which in effect was like one gigantic industry.
Yes, Soviet communism, one big employer who decided from one central place about the production on places far away of which he knew absolutely nothing. Doesn't that remind you of american moving the production abroad?
Socialism as such can be combined with capitalism, but that requires the state to have balls. Or statenotes instead of banknotes. Let's say that a state owns all the statenotes and has a full right to take them away from big industry if they exceed a certain value, save for approved investment projects.

El-ahrairah wrote:
 
Luminon wrote:
Pure capitalism is a nonsense. Sustainable growth is a nonsense. GDP growth, increasing profit forever, making money from nothing, all this is bullshit.
I emphasized the strawman. No one who advocates capitalism/free market with at least a rudimentary understanding of economics is claiming that. Losses are just as much a part of business strategy as profits, and to say that even in a completely free market profits would keep increasing is nonsense. People take risks and make bad investments and mistakes about as often as others make good investments and get things right. Sometimes it's about timing, general conditions, and other external factors as well.
Although this is a strawman, increasing profit forever is exactly what the economy is trying to do. It does not work, of course. But everyone must compete, must turn the wheel of investment/return faster, and of course most of businessmen will lose and minority of businessmen will get rich. Mostly the same minority every time!
There is no free market, specially not the international market. The market is now dominated by several strongest corporations and nations who set the rules as they go and everyone else are just bottom feeders. Now the market is like a rigged game. The strongest do not count with losing, they can not lose. Have you ever seen a stock market? Have you ever seen Angola winning against USA? Uganda winning against Great Britain? Etiopia winning against Germany? Nope, it's the strong countries that buy cheaply and sell expensively, not the poor countries. That is the basis of economic warfare.
Market without restrictions is not free, it takes hell of a restrictions to keep the market free and the chances equal.

Desdenova wrote:

You're kidding, right? First of all, communism and socialism are virtually indistinguishable. But what your cult leader Jacque is calling for is communism at any rate, as he proposes the redistribution of wealth. In effect forcing political control on others through economic means.

Firstly, El-ahrairah understood the difference between Soviet communism and Sweden socialism. Communism is a totalitarian ideology based on philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, it is really like one big brainwashing mindfuck with state-owned business, central planning and no democracy at all. There was just one party. You could choose the people though. But if you wanted to cross out some terrible pigs from the ballot, you had to go into the voting booth, and that in itself was taken as a betrayal of the ideology. The voting clerks immediately gave you a bad point to your records for "crossing out" and that had a negative impact on your employment, study, travel, or employment, study and travel opportunities of your children and grandchildren.
That's hell of a difference to what Jacque Fresco proposes.

Desdenova wrote:

Ummm, the Marshall Plan where America spent billions to rebuild a war torn Europe, including Germany? That wasn't exactly Germany getting it right, nor did it work out all that well. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul is a poor repair job.

Yes!!! Why can't America do it AGAIN? For the whole world? Marshall Plan is the best thing America ever did and the world needs a reprise. America would be celebrated again as the savior of the world.

Mind you, Germany had to pay huge penalties after WW2, but it paid them all and at the same time became economically very strong. That is not just a result of Marshall's plan, that's a result of well tailored economy in long term. The social politics was a priority, but the capitalism was a priority right behind that, necessary for correct financing of social politics.

Desdenova wrote:
Dude, the words 'bureaucratic' and 'expenses to a minimum' are mutually exclusive. Bureaucracies don't tend to comprehend restraint, especially when they can remain faceless. This is exactly what the internet promotes. And how exactly is the internet going to make things better? You don't see much improvement of health care from it. You don't see it doing a lot to expedite grain shipments to drought ridden areas. All it does is facilitate communication. It does virtually nothing in terms of resource allocation.
I was talking about replacing bureaucracy by electronic decision-making software. Most of the clerks don't make any decisions, they do a few simple operations, like
if ( (the_guy_has_paperA = true) and (the_guy_has_paperB = true) ) then { taxi_license(produce); taxi_license(register); } else tell_him(GTFO);
Such a simple bureaucracy does not need a face, office and salary. A software has no ambition and is incorruptible. Which is a big advantage in a state like mine, where 20% of state budget is stolen every year. Of course, the source code would have to be public (so people can watch out for back doors into the system) and open for suggested improvements.
This idea is very Frescoish, it suggests a technical solution for political and social problem. Not a moral lesson, but a pragmatic one.

Furthermore, if the bureaucracy is big enough, does not care about remaining faceless. In my state the government is visibly corrupted and incompetent, but through inflexible voting system, immunity and mandates they can remain there for decades, hoard money, produce scandals and pimp the country to foreign investors. They of course also control broadcasting, public orders, military orders, pharmaceutical lobby, and they call it "democracy". We don't need the Senate, half of the deputies in Parliament, and Provincial offices.

Desdenova wrote:
Luminon wrote:
Anyway, all experts since WW2 knew, that our economy is doomed. Pure capitalism is a nonsense.

Really? All experts? Every single last one of them? Do you realize just how cultish that statement sounds?

Well, it's true that some "experts" propagated the belief in "Invisible hand of market" but do you realize how cultish that sounds?
By the way, I really wonder who deleted my signature. It was nothing weird in there this time, but an article that would support my point right now.

Desdenova wrote:
  And you accuse me of not understanding socialism? Capitalism works as long as there is supply and demand. Growth is desirable, and due to human greed a recurring theme. But numerous mom & pop operations have functioned fine for centuries without expanding. However, you are biting yourself in the ass here. Out of one side of your mouth you are saying that your welfare state has to have a thriving capitalist base in order to function. The other side is saying that capitalism, and therefore the welfare state, is doomed to failure. Make up your mind. Only a socialist would be foolish enough to try and have their cake and eat it too.
The problem is, that the capitalism as we know it today does NOT work with supply and demand. All I was taught in economy classes is a fairy tale. Today, the prices are set artificially according to gambling with finances and resources, so they're like 50% higher than they would be by supply and demand. Another tool of destruction is burning the food. Before that was done directly, wheat into locomotives, cucumbers into the sea, to keep the price up. Today it is done by burning the food as "bio fuel". Or just letting it rot in warehouses. There is of course a huge demand of 3 billions of poor people, but somehow capitalism demands only the colourful papers that only privileged ones can print...

Desdenova wrote:
Hear that Pakistan? (India 1999). Hear that Israel? (Gaza 2008). Hear that Ethiopia? (Somalia 2006). Hear that African Union? (Anjouan 2008). Hear that Georgia? (South Ossetia 2008) Hear that Russia? (Georgia 2008)
That's attacking a neighbour, not moving the whole freakin' army across half of the world. Several times since WW2. I don't know how about all these wars, but at least Israel is supported by USA in several ways and Georgia was such a probe of western forces of how much will Russians allow the western influence to spread. Not very far, as it seems. Really, without USA the world would sleep much more comfortably.

Desdenova wrote:
I actually agree. The current social state of the world is built upon outdated practices. This is not an economic failure. This is a failure of society to wake up and smell the roses. Those billions of poor people need to understand that there are not now, and never will be, enough resources to keep feeding the hungry mouths they churn out. They need to understand that birth control and education are their quickest, surest way out of poverty. But for the most part, they, like you, have fallen sway to some cult that makes empty promises and keeps them bound to ignorance an poverty. Changing the way people accumulate wealth isn't the answer. Prying open their ignorant eyes is.
Here I again disagree. If you look at statistics, you will see that all these billions of poor people do not consume almost anything, compared to the small minority of us, developed industrial nations. 80% of world's resources is owned by 20% of richest population. The remaining majority has to get by with mere 20% of global resources. Nobody can accuse them of eating too much.
It's us who consume everything, and what we don't consume we throw away, and what we don't throw away we keep locked up. A billion or so people can consume and waste resources that belong to the other several billions.
WE are the gluttons, WE are guilty of wasting resources and WE have to adjust. We even waste the energy with shipping all of this resources on the other side of planet where they're wasted.

Furthermore, have you ever heard of demographic revolution? It is the only way how to solve overpopulation. Poverty, starvation and war have quite opposite effect, they force people to breed. It is technically impossible to significantly reduce people's number by violence, without reducing the land to ashes. Even the WW2 hardly made a dent on the graph. Demographic revolution is the only way. That is, giving these people food, water, shelter, healthcare, education, security and condoms. Lots of condoms and other contraception which would not work at all without demographic revolution.

 

Desdenova wrote:
  Uh huh, yeah. Unfortunately, your cult leader proposes to make things worse, not better. The idiot claims that the earth has an abundance of resources and energy, and wants to parcel them out fairly to the poor, ignorant breeders to help them churn out more poor ignorant breeders. The problem is, resources and energy are scarce and growing scarcer, not abundant. His proposal would deplete our resources at an accelerated rate,  reducing us all to the stone ages in 20 years instead of 50. Brilliant!
Please read up about demographic revolution. Yes, it increases population temporarily, but if getting the country out of stone age is done as a controlled process (with lots of contraception around) then the population decrease is early.

Desdenova wrote:
Look dude, the human race in general is stupid. Monumentally, tragically, unrepentantly stupid. They don't know how to manage their own resources. Do you really think that giving them more is going to make their lives better? Hell, most American's would find a way to convert their allocations to lifetime passes for Nascar events!
Americans are... Well, let's say that they were protected from consequences of their stupidity for a long time. That time ended with 11th september. But poor people are not stupid, they must be very smart in a sense to survive every day. They just lack education in very basic things, so it may look like stupidity.

Desdenova wrote:
I bought my first car at age 16. I worked washing dishes, hauling hay, and building fence to get it. I paid my way through community college by working as a mason's assistant 12 hours a day on Saturdays and Sundays. I used that quick education as a springboard, continuing to educate myself and work. I have accumulated wealth at a more or less steady rate for damned near 30 years, and no secret cabal of Greedites showed up on my door to put a stop to it.  I worked for what I have, and I worked damn hard. Do you really think that I would just hand over what I have earned to feed a bunch of primitives living in a desert that refuse to pick up their clay pots and hike 50 miles north to live in a lush rain forest because their culture tells them that where they are squatting is their land? Fuck that! I would sooner convert all of my assets into cash and burn it in the fireplace than to send one single penny of my money to someone too stupid to try and better himself. In fact, I had rather convert it all into sardines and feed it to the fucking seals out on the ice than to give it to some faceless bureaucracy that thinks it knows better how to allocate resources than I do. And I had damned rather blow it on caviar and champagne in one night of debauchery than hand it over to a socialist eco cult that is too stupid to even grasp simple concepts like there being too little arable land to feed billions indefinitely.
So you're about 46 now. That means you might still catch a part of American after-war conjuncture. Your parents could go to war, return, buy a house, pay the mortgage, raise a family and enjoy the highest retirement rent in american history. When there was not a war or totalitarian regime in your country for a long time but everywhere else, it does wonders with economy.
I personally couldn't earn anything when growing up. I had both parents unemployed for 6 years and of course there was no abundance of part time jobs that you had. I live in a poor structurally damaged region near state border.
And if you'd listen to my cult leaders, you would know that nobody wants your money. They only want the industrial excessive resources that are held back or destroyed to keep the commodity price up. They want them shipped across the sea or anywhere necessary, where there is poverty, lack of these resources and no market to speak of. So the price won't change much. It needs just to pass a law to confiscate these big industrial excessive supplies and to move them where needed. Capitalism produces these supplies quite consistently. So all it needs is not being a dick and giving away what doesn't get consumed anyway.

Desdenova wrote:
  Fix our education system. Capitalism works pretty damn good even with morons involved in it. Think of how it will prosper if you educate the morons. And while you are at it, do something about the population. I decided at an early age to not further burden the world with children. That is commitment. But here you are, spending what, $19.95 a month on internet when you could use that money to feed 50 starving Africans? WTF?  Put your money where your mouth is, and have your cult leader do the same. Do you think those fucking scale models he has blown thousands on are making a difference?  The guy is no better than a fucking televangelist, offering vacuous promises of a greater tomorrow if only you send him money today.

I should do something about your education. American army protected your ass for too long. You think that capitalism works well? More than 1 billion of people lives in slums, is that a success for you? Other two billions are still poor, and these are our fellow earthlings. 10 millions of them dies per year by starvation. Add to it the malaria, which is an easily and cheaply preventable disease. That is no capitalism, that is global disorder, a dystopia. I am fucking ashamed to have this mess on my home planet, specially when it's so simple to solve. This is not a problem of money, my money won't solve it nor anyone else's. Hell a lot of people must scream real loud into their politicians' faces, so they will feel motivated do a few simple steps to fix this disorder. This is they job, they just have to rattle their traps a lot, raise hands, write a paper, subscribe a paper, and things will start happening. Money will start flowing, resources will be shipped and distributed and international political attitudes will change towards the better.

This will show extremely profitable, because it will save a lot of military expenses. What you spare on the starving millions, you spend by far on defending from their righteous anger and desperate terrorism. Today there is more money spent on weapons than during the arms race of Cold war. I want to save these money for better purposes.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Hi Luminon. Sorry it has

Hi Luminon. Sorry it has taken me so long to write a response. A side business of mine, an off-shore sweat shop, was having problems. The child workers were protesting the 18 hour work days by pretending to collapse from exhaustion. I had to get the U.S.M.C. to fly in and force the children to flog one another at gunpoint to improve their productivity.

Now I know that it is going to be hard to defend free market economy in a world where thousands of Americans risk their lives to flee to the workers paradise of Cuba, but try I must.

Lets begin with your flawed view of communist economy, as you seem to think that communists do not employ a socialist economy. A socialist economy normally involves land and business ownership by the government instead of individuals, progressive taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution, and price control. There is nothing in this to demonstrate a difference between Switzerland's economic formula and that of the former Soviet Union's economic formula. Both rely on socialist economics. One might even be inclined to argue that the only way to maintain a socialist economy is for the already overly empowered state to exert more and more control over its citizens as they grow weary of heavy taxation and chronic shortages.

When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement. This was recognized even by Aristotle, and can be seen time and again in overgrazing, overfishing, and numerous other examples. This is a strong indicator that the pipe dream of Utopian socialism is doomed to failure. The only ways to prevent this in a socialistic society is for the government to exert ever increasing control to the point of Draconian rule, or for the government to come to its senses and abandon socialism until the next head in the clouds dreamer comes along and proposes it again and the whole nasty cycle repeats.

 
Britain wrestled with various combinations of democracy and socialism for decades with horrible consequences until Thatcher tossed socialism into the waste basket and revived capitalism. Mitterand did the same with France and reversed the edematous inflation and trade balance collapse brought on by socialism there, and is quoted as saying "The private sector is recognized as the creator of social wealth"

Now lets look at Sweden.

On 26th February 2008, Mr. Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of Sweden gave a talk at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The subject that he presented was: "The New Swedish Model: A Reform Agenda for Growth and the Environment"

  The speech can be read in full from the Swedish Embassy or here

  The passages that interested me the most were the following:

  At the beginning of the 1970s Sweden also had the fourth highest GDP per capita measured in purchasing power parity. Sweden was blooming. Then came Sweden's mad quarter of a century.

 Growth fell off. Unemployment rose. The quality of welfare declined. What, then, were the factors that made the Swedish model stop working?

The economic downturn that followed the two oil crises in the 1970s of course had a negative impact on Sweden. Also, the financial crises and macroeconomic shocks of the early 1990s had substantial consequences for the Swedish economy. But these shocks also affected other industrial countries. And it is difficult to argue that Sweden was particularly vulnerable to the international business cycle. This alone cannot explain why Sweden fell from fourth place in the OECD's ranking of member countries by GDP per capita around 1970, to eighteenth place in 1997.

 Instead, I would argue that the explanation lies in other factors. The vital balance between the institutions in the model disappeared and socialism swept over Swedish society.


We saw budget deficits and high inflation undermine macroeconomic stability. In many respects this was the result of irresponsible and short-sighted political actions. We saw a sharp rise in taxes, especially on labour, together with an expansion of benefit systems that undermined the work-first principle and made it less worthwhile to work.


The education system was distorted and Swedish schools focused less on knowledge. Changes in international competition were met with subsidies rather than reforms. Free enterprise was not encouraged; instead it was questioned.

 We saw a rise in unemployment and the percentage of working-age people supported by various social benefits and subsidies rose from 10 per
cent in 1970 to about 20 per cent in the present decade.

  What took a hundred years to build was nearly dismantled in twenty five years..

(Emphasis mine)

 
Today state pensions, schools, health care, public transport and post offices have been fully or partly privatized over the last decade, making Sweden one of the most free market-orientated economies in the world, analysts say.



This must be a fluke! Surely Sweden is alone in this, right? Well, not quite. Back in the 1960's Canadian senator Claude Castonguay helped bring socialism to Quebec's health care. He is sometimes called the Father of Quebec medicare. But today he has changed his position. As head of the Task Force on the Funding of the Health System, he has released a 314 page report that calls for reforms in the system. In it he says "We must face facts: today, the public system does not seem to be able to satisfy public demand." He then suggests that medical professionals be allowed to venture into he private field and give a greater role to the private sector in general. 40 years is taking a long time to admit ones mistakes, but better late than never. Thank you Claude, pioneer of Canadian socilized medicine! The report can be read here.

And what is this with China? Those guys have really become world players now that they have opened the privatized floodgates onto the global market. They have come a long way from the stagnant socialist economy of the 70's. With just a little dabbling with free market in 1978 they saw nice profit gains. This encouraged them to abandon state owned enterprises and adopt economic liberalization that has driven them up to the number 2 spot as a global trading power, right behind America. Roughly a third of their industry is now privatized. We can only imagine the prosperity that country would achieve should it abandon socialism entirely.

Following China's lead, even that zany, lovable socialist leader of North Korea, the charming Mr. Kim Jong-il, has began dabbling in capitalism, reaching its apex with the Kaesong Industrial Region. Time will tell if relations hold with the South long enough for it to help North Korea's economy, but at least even someone like Kim eventually has enough sense to realize that the socialist economic system is a failure.

We really need look no further than the figures of those below the poverty line by nation to see the death throes of socialism. A simple consultation will show that about half of the poor exist in countries with strong socialist programs in place, with the bulk of the remainder being from those war torn countries that have become the welfare recipients of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.  This is no failure on the part of free market, as free market has never really been given an opportunity in these countries. In fact many of them are in their current state after being under the influence of socialist regimes. And yet the socialists like to blame the failure on capitalism, as if it is the capitalist's fault that socialism fails time and again. Perhaps the socialist needs to take a look under the hood of their vehicle to understand where rests the actual problem.

I hate to break the sad news to you, but socialism is a brain dead corpse kept on life support by those who are unwilling to let its decayed body go in peace. Ludwig von Mises demonstrated its cardiac failure in the 1920's with the impossibility of a socialist government being able to make the economic calculations required to organize a complex economy. The lifelong socialist and American economist Robert Heilbroner  perhaps grudgingly admitted this, and summed it up nicely after the fall of the Soviet Union. "It turns out, of course, that Mises was right. Capitalism has been as unmistakable a success as socialism has been a failure. Here is the part that's hard to swallow. It has been the Friedmans, Hayeks, and von Miseses who have maintained that capitalism would flourish and that socialism would develop incurable ailments."

Incurable ailments indeed. It is time to pull the plug on the cadaver that is socialism. But do not grieve its death, as it shall rise again with the next generation of starry eyed idealists that have yet to realize that the road to economic hell is paved with the best of intentions.

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The difference between

The difference between reasonable socialism and absurd socialism is the one of a degree. Anything taken to extreme is destructive. An ideal economy must have variety of private and public enterprises, but avoid aggressivity of government and corporations. The extremity may even be in form of size, like largeness or smallness. When the economy gets on extremely small level, you have basically a black market and exchange of goods among neighbours. When enterprise gets big, the result are international corporations that may dominate even economies of whole states. That is common for example in banana republics, where greedy thugs kill a governor because the foreign traders will pay for the bananas to anyone who's currently on the top. This is wrong, but it's not all that is wrong.

Yes, I have some inclinations towards Frescoish technocracy. If a public asset is threatened by overuse or misuse, then let's simply create a technical contraption that will protect it - just like people usually can't take as much money as they want from ATMs. Together with providing a basic living standard. In a couple of generation of sane living people should learn to take from the nature (and society) only what they need. Aboriginal people of all continents respected their environment and they survived for millenia. We have a different environment, but it also will work only when respected.

Currently, people need money for a basic living. They can not think of respect to their environment, they must go out and collect money by any means necessary to surive or pay the bills and not let the offices take their children away. Money is the idol, no matter for whom, if the poor or the rich. The rich continue to do whatever they do for money, even if they have enough for several new generations. There is no point in this. No point in extreme cumulation of money, or their extreme lack. Money must be used and thought of entirely differently than they are today.

When I see what you wrote certain things stick out.
The private sector may be recognized as a creator of social wealth, but only up to a certain size. Make someone too rich and succesful, and he will earn for himself, not for the society. Nothing could bring Bill Gates to return at least a part of his enormous wealth to the world, than his conscience.

International business cycle? What is the purpose of a business? As the swedish guy said, to create social wealth. As I wrote, when something is too big, it takes a life of it's own and pays no attention to the society that is ourselves. International business is a good example.

High inflation? Why the hell there is such a thing as inflation? New stuff does not come from nowhere. The law of energy preservation still works. So why is anyone allowed to create money (the token of value) out of nothing? Why these money are created en masse, by electronic transaction between a bank and government? Why does anyone think that this will help the economy? Global economy is fucked up precisely for the reason, that the enormous amount of imaginary money has nothing to do with limited amounts of goods existing today.

Furthermore, prices of goods today are also artificially set. They are often increased by gambling about 50% higher than they would be simply by supply and demand. (who's really the guy with regulated economy, heh?) Nobody counts in the hidden costs. Nobody increases the price by the petrol burned to get the goods across a half of the planet. Nobody counts in the environmental damage from low ecologic standards in third world countries. Nobody calculates the steps of production through which a food must go through - meat production is particularly costly. Everything must be able to compete.

Compete, why the hell? Nowadays people can't live and work in peace, they must compete on job market, at the job itself, companies compete, and even whole countries must compete against each other. Let the strongest win. The problem is, that the strongest ones are always the same. Why should the strongest improve their services, if they can stay strongest by other means? Like, by destroying or controlling the other competitors or by lowering the quality to increase profit. What sort of cutthroat manner is this?  What about a gentlemanship, equal opportunities and responsibility to not let the defeated ones die?

The competition is fine, as long as it's not all or nothing. Capitalism as you like it is pretty much like a dirty fight to death between unequal fighters. This is exactly why the competition in Olympics is just symbolic, the losers aren't left to starve in poverty and the winner receives a big golden chamber pot, not a top chair in the government. And how succesful this is. Those people do it mainly for the fun and achievement. Why businessmen couldn't do the same with their business? It would be most certainly less painful than competing in sports.

The point is, it is a nonsense to compete for basic means of living. Hell, people need to eat to live, so why is food for money? What if I don't have any money, nor means to earn them? What then, am I not a homo sapiens anymore? The Declaration of basic rights suddenly does not apply on me? Where the capitalism has any respect for the Declaration of basic rights? Is it an idealism or socialism or communism or utopia to respect the Declaration? Nope, it is the first thing that every fucking government or corporation should do!

I could go on how the civil war in Congo, calamity in Darfur or oil spill in Mexico weren't caused by socialism, but the point has been said.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Declaration of basic rights?

Declaration of basic rights? Are you referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The one that article 17 of mentions how individuals are entitled to own property and not be deprived of their personal property? That set of rights? That is one of the rights you are proposing we trample all over by stealing from the corporations to feed the lazy masses. 

And to answer your question about not having money to eat, no, nobody is entitled to a free lunch. And you know why? Because all too often a free lunch becomes a hundred free lunches, a free roof, free utilities, free health care for the spouse that is churning out kids around the clock, and free insurance for the dozen snot nosed lazy slack jawed whelp that grew up with the knowledge that you don't have to work for a living. You're right. They quit being homo sapiens the moment they became parasites.

If you want people to see to the welfare of others, reinstate a feudal system and appoint the successful ones as lords. Give them a couple hundred unsuccessful serfs and they will take care of those serfs so long as those serfs are productive. The ones that are unproductive will very soon become an example for the others, giving them further incentive to be productive. Large harvest festivals and bountiful stock are the reward and social service for lean times. Nothing short of this, no social system of elevated ideals, is ever going to make people work for the common good. There are far too many stupid, lazy, and selfish individuals out there for your Utopian pipe dream to ever work.

By the way, you never did explain why Sweden abandoned your perfect system, why Claude Castonguay now suggests that socialized medicine isn't working in Canada, and why China is engaging in privatization and free enterprise.  Why isn't socialism working for these people, hmmmm?

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Declaration

Desdenova wrote:

Declaration of basic rights? Are you referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The one that article 17 of mentions how individuals are entitled to own property and not be deprived of their personal property? That set of rights? That is one of the rights you are proposing we trample all over by stealing from the corporations to feed the lazy masses.

Corporations aren't persons. Corporate property is not always untouchable. Human being or family is a basic unit and certain wealth is way over human size. It could be therefore only borrowed from the society for a specific purpose, that purpose NOT being hoarding money and more property or economic power. There should be Asimov's three laws for corporations. As far as I am concerned, Coca Cola should be shut down and stop wasting all that aluminium on cans.
Yes, I'm all for relatively small or local enterprise, but everything much bigger than that must be strictly controlled. Just like in democracy, people are the source of power and the government must be responsible to them. People are also the source of wealth and economic power, that must be also outweighed by responsibility.

Desdenova wrote:
And to answer your question about not having money to eat, no, nobody is entitled to a free lunch. And you know why? Because all too often a free lunch becomes a hundred free lunches, a free roof, free utilities, free health care for the spouse that is churning out kids around the clock, and free insurance for the dozen snot nosed lazy slack jawed whelp that grew up with the knowledge that you don't have to work for a living. You're right. They quit being homo sapiens the moment they became parasites.
That is not a good reason. Yes, I have gypsies in my country too and they steal everything that is not nailed down and most of things that are. And they throw social welfare money into slot machines.
It is simply a fact, that there are multiple types of people living in the same state. In this case, they are on the biologic level, IOW, primitive communal system. They need sugar like everyone else, but they need a big whip alongside that or they'll get spoiled. They are not adults but small children in their head. I would like to see a kind of SOS villages for them, only that O left out. (pun intended Smiling ) That means, a place where someone would boss them around to exercise in the morning, build more houses and facilities, to go to school or other kind of education, and would take their children away if they wouldn't let them go to school. No shit. And no welfare money. There would be of course a lot of their culture, lots of ribbons, violins and tamburines, even fortune tellers and their traditional tribal king (vajda) who would of course cooperate with the offices. Yes, under the nice public image of Roma culture the whole place would be a big military camp human freedoms violating mindfuck, but it wouldn't harm them, it would make them much more than they are through the way of tough love. Something like Jehovah' witness community, just without Jehovah.

Desdenova wrote:
If you want people to see to the welfare of others, reinstate a feudal system and appoint the successful ones as lords. Give them a couple hundred unsuccessful serfs and they will take care of those serfs so long as those serfs are productive. The ones that are unproductive will very soon become an example for the others, giving them further incentive to be productive. Large harvest festivals and bountiful stock are the reward and social service for lean times. Nothing short of this, no social system of elevated ideals, is ever going to make people work for the common good. There are far too many stupid, lazy, and selfish individuals out there for your Utopian pipe dream to ever work.
That sounds nice, but too dependent on benevolent feudal masters. And they aren't usually benevolent. In my region several hundred years ago they were quite a pigs. They chose women in the field to come to their bed temporarily, or else. And more, worse things.
Furthermore, there is nothing in what you propose, that would let the people change to the better and become independent and self-responsible members of the society. You know, most of atheists here are like that, they became more reasonable and civilized than their families and had to leave. Feudal serfs just can't do that. Fuck productivity, feudal system just doesn't work anymore with agricultural machinery. Nothing can be more productive than that. It is too rough to control the people through force, when they respond much better to emotional mindfuck! Jehovan's witnesses don't need the police or feudal master.
Those who would see through the brainwashing, resist against it like a new atheist resists against religion of the family, those would be freed from the system and offered new freedoms and responsibilities. Yes, basically that would be an open caste system, open for everyone to ascend or fall.

Desdenova wrote:
By the way, you never did explain why Sweden abandoned your perfect system, why Claude Castonguay now suggests that socialized medicine isn't working in Canada, and why China is engaging in privatization and free enterprise.  Why isn't socialism working for these people, hmmmm?

Because their socialism is very inefficient, lots of money get lost on state apparatus and people who don't need the money. It is also very inflexible, slow to react on market. There are more reasons, like the inability to compete with other states. Hell, there should be no place for competition! Public sector does not need competition, it needs responsibility, a feedback from the people. All the privatized institutions you mentioned, schools, hospitals, post offices, they are very much in touch with the people and local community, this is why the privatization was succesful.

I would go around these problems by digitalization of paperwork and bureaucracy. Computers work quickly, don't need paper and don't take salary. Yeah, conspiracy theorists would get scared by the all-knowing system. That would be hopefully solved by making all source code open and public and everyone could get a prize by finding a bug in it.


We do have great technologies today that make the socialism possible for the first time in history. Such socialism really needs only a good engineer and good programmer to make it extremely simple. And a visionary who will find a place for everyone. These technologies are not yet used today, because there is no political and economical will.  Life must be made very simple, so that our brain capacity will be freed for learning and doing many very complicated things. People must be freed by simplicity, not just from something, but for the purpose to learn, to know themselves and self-realize.
Productivity is not the purpose of life. If a society falls if not enough people stand all day next to conveyor belts with pieces of cheap shit (this is how I used to work) then it is a shitty society that must be redesigned. Like socialism, this capitalism is just as inefficient and outdated. Hell, in my factory the only things that were made right were management salaries.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.