Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/5/09 10:54 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: lol I cant believe you guys are taking this seriously, my god I was joking,

jeez....

I've avoided this thread for the longest while.
But I'm not too sure about you saying this is a joke...

Where's the punch line?

At 3/6/09 12:21 AM, fli wrote:

At 3/5/09 10:54 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: lol I cant believe you guys are taking this seriously, my god I was joking,

jeez....

I've avoided this thread for the longest while.
But I'm not too sure about you saying this is a joke...

Where's the punch line?

Dante is the punchline!!

What's that you say? A politician with an agenda? Where have I been?

At 3/5/09 11:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
But when you talk about an NWO, that is what the NWO is supposed to be isn't it? Isn't that what Mr. Jones and others contend it to be? That's sure as shit what I've been told by all the conspiracy theorists I know, that this was manipulated by bankers and what not. Or are you saying you don't believe that part and what you see here is simply politicians acting in an oppurtunistic manner to create such a system of their own volition? Because when you don't clarify that point to me, I tend to infer that you are agreeing with the idea of a shadow organization that is manipulating and controlling the situation.

I do believe 'some' of the conspiracies of the private banks but things like that are useless to argue since they always end in what ifs and little substance. I tend to stay away from some things like that when there is little evidence to provide. My initial intention was to post the video to show KemCab the irony of what he said.

I've only heard the word TEMPORARY, for most, if not all changes to the banking systems. Also how does only two countries talking about it qualify as a WORLD system? I do still think your talking conspiracies and you're reaching. But if you're not talking about the conspiracy theories that were spouted at the beginning of this thread, then you really should make that clear somewhere in your post so no one misqoutes or misunderstands you.

It is Obama and Brown at the moment but Brown said "there is a possibility in the next few months for a global new deal that would involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system". I wasn't jumping to conclusions, Brown says it himself. If you read the ticker in the bottom it says Pres. Obama says globalization can be a force for good. The emphasis on global is made quite a few times so it really doesn't seem like these two intend to go through with this new deal by themselves.

At 3/6/09 07:29 AM, JackTipper wrote: It is Obama and Brown at the moment but Brown said "there is a possibility in the next few months for a global new deal that would involve all the countries of the world in sorting out and cleaning up the banking system". I wasn't jumping to conclusions, Brown says it himself. If you read the ticker in the bottom it says Pres. Obama says globalization can be a force for good. The emphasis on global is made quite a few times so it really doesn't seem like these two intend to go through with this new deal by themselves.

Which to me isn't of itself a bad idea in theory. It all depends on how it's implemented and what the ultimate aim is. The truth is the global banking system DOES need to clean up because the economic problems aren't just one or two industrialized nations, it seems EVERYBODY is in various degrees of suffering, and if everybody is entangled with everybody else, then everybody would logically to me need to work together to fix it because in the end that protects their own interests. It's utilitarian self-preservation to me.

I would say that there is more likely to be such a conspiracy in the spirit of helping people.

At 3/6/09 01:43 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Which to me isn't of itself a bad idea in theory. It all depends on how it's implemented and what the ultimate aim is. The truth is the global banking system DOES need to clean up because the economic problems aren't just one or two industrialized nations, it seems EVERYBODY is in various degrees of suffering, and if everybody is entangled with everybody else, then everybody would logically to me need to work together to fix it because in the end that protects their own interests. It's utilitarian self-preservation to me.

Involving the world to fix the problems at home is jumping the gun. If there was truly more emphasis on limiting imported goods and focusing on production that would be a better start. Two oceans, lots of land, and the oil in the Alaska. We could make our paradise if we stopped looking for short cuts and help.

At 3/6/09 05:20 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 3/6/09 01:43 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which to me isn't of itself a bad idea in theory.

Globalization is a good thing.

I beg to differ and I'll tell ya why!

The opposite of that is isolationism and that only stifles the economy.

That's why we find a suitable medium, which is pretty much what we have. nations trading with each other while remaining independent.

Having world organizations, or even a de facto world government in the future is not necessarily evil or even bad in general provided that it could work.

So could communism, but you see the results of that. The problem with the idea of a world government is the fact that power inherently corrupts. There is no avoiding the corruption that power brings. No human to date has EVER been in power without becoming corrupt from it. A world government would be the ultimate power, and therefore the ultimate corruption. It may be a... uhh "democratic republic" but you would see what you see in America today. the balance of power shifts too far in either direction and the politicians feel as if they can do as they please with no repercussions. Once they can confirm that they can do as they please and remain in power, its a guaranteed bet that they will no longer represent their people, but instead, represent themselves and their party.

It would deter war and could help law enforcement around the world work together against terrorists, it promotes trade, and it would raise the living standard of the poorest countries if properly overseen.

"If" is always the key word. but what would happen if 1 nation of producing a lot more than another nation? conflict would arise. People are greedy by nature. everyone has desires. If one person makes something and the other person sits on his ass and refuses to produce anything, it won't be long before the first person is completely unwilling to give what he makes to the lazy person. Also, with a global government, there are no checks or balances to make sure the global government doesn't in turn enslave the masses. If those in power decide to take everything for themselves and oppress the people, there is nothing to stop them.

NWO conspiracy theorists are crazy to be wary of globalization, especially since there's almost zero chance of an oligarchical or autocratic rule by anyone in an age where market forces are dominant and people are educated enough not to place complete, unwavering trust in a leader, even an elected one like Obama.

They are not as crazy as you think. When there is nothing to challenge power, then the people in power ALWAYS oppresses the masses. A world government WILL in time turn communist, its unavoidable. People in power will always desire to remain that way as long as they can. To take the power from the people and give it to themselves is inevitable. No one in power has ever stepped down without coercion without giving the power to a relative or someone they know will keep the power the way THEY want it.

"There is nothing to stop the government from oppressing the masses."

Except, you know, the masses.

Conspiracy Theorists shouldn't be allowed to share their ignorance with the world.

Some people might actually believe this shit, you know.

At 3/5/09 11:26 AM, Mr-Money wrote: Look at Obama for what he's done. He's broken promises, appointed lobbyists.

Actually, he's kept all of his campaign promises so far, aside from appointing a lobbyist.

You can't expect him to keep all his campaign promises within 40 days of taking office.

The scariest thing is how the media has portrayed him as the Messiah.... giving him a free ride from day one...

Actually, they haven't. But MSNBC News shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann have. But guess what? Those are OPINIONATED shows. They're not supposed to be, nor do they pass themselves off as, neutral news programs.

Stop using Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, SNL, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart as representatives of every single media outlet. Your only source for the media portraying Obama as the Messiah are these opinionated shows, which obviously aren't meant to be taken as neutral.

I am extremely looking forward to this movie. It's going to wake up a lot of people to the fraud that is Barack Obama.

So because you didn't/don't like Obama, he must automatically be part of a global conspiracy that is as believable (and has equal proof) as 2pac still being alive.

I don't like McCain, but even I won't make him part of some bullshit conspiracy like these other idiots.

At 3/6/09 08:34 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: "There is nothing to stop the government from oppressing the masses."

Except, you know, the masses.

tell that to the Iraqi people before the American Army took out Saddam.
tell that to the people of Darfur.
tell that to the people Zimbabwe.
tell that to any people who are being oppressed. the idea that "the people can stop government from oppressing them" is on the same league as world peace.

At 3/6/09 08:01 PM, Korriken wrote: No human to date has EVER been in power without becoming corrupt from it.

Beg to differ, Cyrus king of Persia had people kissing his feet when he took over their lands because he was extremely tolerant and basically left things as they were, it's just you were governed by a different king. Vlad Dracula may have been a very cruel and dictatorial type leader, but he did those things in the pursuit of bettering his nation morally and economically (and some would argue that until he was deposed by outside forces, he did. Romania still considers him a folk hero). Just two examples that I believe shoot down you're theory here.

A world government would be the ultimate power, and therefore the ultimate corruption. It may be a... uhh "democratic republic" but you would see what you see in America today. the balance of power shifts too far in either direction and the politicians feel as if they can do as they please with no repercussions. Once they can confirm that they can do as they please and remain in power, its a guaranteed bet that they will no longer represent their people, but instead, represent themselves and their party.

So what you're saying is we'd have the ineffiecent democratic type systems we have now, but on a grander scale? Also yeah, not in favor of a world government, but the point is we can't be isolationists either. The thing that this crisis has taught is is how far in bed ALL the different markets are with each other now anyway, so what topples one absolutely negatively impacts the other. So in that way we DO have to pay attention to what other countries are doing, and try to help them if possible. I'm not saying unification, just more like if your neighbor is in trouble, and your friendly with that neighbor, you'd try to help them out.

They are not as crazy as you think.

Oh rly?

When there is nothing to challenge power, then the people in power ALWAYS oppresses the masses.

I just gave two examples (one stronger then the other I admit) of government that worked towards the good of it's people. One of them was even the head of a large empire. So again, using the world "always" is flawed here, the word "usually" would fit just fine. But I know, that just doesn't sound as damned impressive as "always".

A world government WILL in time turn communist, its unavoidable.

I thought you were talking dictatorialness? Communism isn't inherently evil, it's just been how it's practiced that hasn't been so nice. Not to mention communism has worked pretty well for ONE industrialized nation so far. Communism isn't the same as totalitarianism, by definition it's not supposed to be.

People in power will always desire to remain that way as long as they can.

Damn skippy.

To take the power from the people and give it to themselves is inevitable.

Well fuck. I guess that nearly 300 years of peaceful regime change in USA is all a sham and it'll be stopped any day now right?

No one in power has ever stepped down without coercion without giving the power to a relative or someone they know will keep the power the way THEY want it.

Once again, the USA. Where presidents, congressman, governors, etc. gave up office (usually) because the people voted them out. No fuss, no bloody coup, no "I won't play that game and I'm going to seize power now" they just did it because that's what the Constitution says they should do.

Again, I'm not arguing FOR a 1 world government, I'm not really with that, I believe nations can keep their independence while still working together to make sure the global economy doesn't freakin collapse. But what I AM saying here is your points so far have been crap. It's alarmist stuff that if you stopped and proofread and thought about what you were saying you'd see all the wholes in talking in so many absolutes that are easily refutable. But I know, absolutes sound better, that sounds decisive and important. Too bad they don't always work.

Achilles2 he has broken way more promises than just appointing lobbyist. He didn't repeal the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. acts and troops are still in Iraq when he said they'd be out in a few months and now its in two or more years. There is a lot more but right now they're not coming to mind.

At 3/7/09 02:00 AM, JackTipper wrote: Achilles2 he has broken way more promises than just appointing lobbyist. He didn't repeal the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. acts and troops are still in Iraq when he said they'd be out in a few months and now its in two or more years. There is a lot more but right now they're not coming to mind.

But the troops ARE coming out. As far as the Patriot act? He has limited the powers of the justice department under it, he has a major economic issue to work with, and he's only been on the job 2 months. It's about prioritizing, can you go into your job with a list of long term goals and treat the words "long term" as "within a couple of months"? Really? I mean, I tend to think there's a pretty good reason a presidential term is 4 years, it's because you need a lot of time to get major change, and sometimes even minimal change, done.

At 3/6/09 09:59 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 3/6/09 08:01 PM, Korriken wrote: No human to date has EVER been in power without becoming corrupt from it.

Beg to differ...

I think I just got served. ok there's always a few exceptions to the rule. Also, ole Vlad would actually strengthen my argument. He was a cold hearted bastard that slaughtered masses of people in an effort to better his country. What would stop a global government from doing that? eliminate the middle east, kill everyone, in order to put a stop to the perpetual fighting in the name of world peace? it would be very effective.

So what you're saying is we'd have the ineffiecent democratic type systems we have now, but on a grander scale? Also yeah, not in favor of a world government, but the point is we can't be isolationists either. The thing that this crisis has taught is is how far in bed ALL the different markets are with each other now anyway, so what topples one absolutely negatively impacts the other. So in that way we DO have to pay attention to what other countries are doing, and try to help them if possible. I'm not saying unification, just more like if your neighbor is in trouble, and your friendly with that neighbor, you'd try to help them out.

We could have any inefficient system on a global scale.

They are not as crazy as you think.

Oh rly?

Ya Rly. the crazies keep people aware of the possibility. the people yelling "THE END IS NEAR! REPENT!!" will someday be right. the world will eventually come to an end. be it by divine providence, a meteor, global warming, global freezing, or nuclear winter. Maybe the core of the planet will implode...

When there is nothing to challenge power, then the people in power ALWAYS oppresses the masses.

I just gave two examples (one stronger then the other I admit) of government that worked towards the good of it's people. One of them was even the head of a large empire. So again, using the world "always" is flawed here, the word "usually" would fit just fine. But I know, that just doesn't sound as damned impressive as "always".

you found an exception to the rule. good job. once in a few thousand years an actual benevolent ruler emerges.

When there is nothing to challenge power, then the people in power almost always oppresses the masses.

A world government WILL in time turn communist, its unavoidable.

I thought you were talking dictatorialness? Communism isn't inherently evil, it's just been how it's practiced that hasn't been so nice. Not to mention communism has worked pretty well for ONE industrialized nation so far. Communism isn't the same as totalitarianism, by definition it's not supposed to be.

True, but how many communist governments aren't basically dictatorships? Most communist governments are either single party governments with no competition, or the competition to the ruling party are completely incapable of getting a strong foothold. With any organization, there is a leader who calls the shots. Communism isn't inherently evil, this is true, but for everyone on earth to have the same standard of living, the thought of communism comes to mind.

I could see a world government sorting out the problems of the world. It could be bloody. Round up everyone with aids, kill em. dispose of the corpses. Aids epidemic is over. Overpopulation a problem? massive lottery to see who dies. violence between 2 local factions? one or both have to go.

People in power will always desire to remain that way as long as they can.

Damn skippy.

To take the power from the people and give it to themselves is inevitable.

Well fuck. I guess that nearly 300 years of peaceful regime change in USA is all a sham and it'll be stopped any day now right?

No one in power has ever stepped down without coercion without giving the power to a relative or someone they know will keep the power the way THEY want it.

Once again, the USA. Where presidents, congressman, governors, etc. gave up office (usually) because the people voted them out. No fuss, no bloody coup, no "I won't play that game and I'm going to seize power now" they just did it because that's what the Constitution says they should do.

True, but the difference is, they didn't give up the power. The power was taken from them and given to another person. If the president said, "Screw you, president elect, this is MY country!" He would have no backing from anyone else, which renders him powerless. Also, no political party in America has enough power to destroy the other. Even with wild swings in power balance between them, they know that saying, "This is our government, and we're banning other parties!" would cause a massive uprising. Ever hear of a king or a president for life willingly giving up power with no pressure and not give it to someone that will carry on the way they did? maybe, but it would be incredibly rare.

Again, I'm not arguing FOR a 1 world government, I'm not really with that, I believe nations can keep their independence while still working together to make sure the global economy doesn't freakin collapse. But what I AM saying here is your points so far have been crap. It's alarmist stuff that if you stopped and proofread and thought about what you were saying you'd see all the wholes in talking in so many absolutes that are easily refutable. But I know, absolutes sound better, that sounds decisive and important. Too bad they don't always work.

Point taken, there are always exceptions to the rule. Seeing how local goverment is corrupt just about everywhere I go, regional/state governments are corrupt just about everywhere I go, national goverments are corrupt just about where in the world, it would be damned near impossible to say that a global government wouldn't be even worse. It would be like the UN with authority, and that;s scary.

At 3/6/09 08:01 PM, Korriken wrote: No human to date has EVER been in power without becoming corrupt from it.

What kind of power are you talking about? Be more specific. Every single national leader in the history of the world would be corrupt from this logic.

At 3/6/09 09:07 PM, Korriken wrote:
tell that to any people who are being oppressed. the idea that "the people can stop government from oppressing them" is on the same league as world peace.

If colonists thought that there would be no United States.

Oh yeah and France, although that kind of backfired.

My point is that such a world government would not have ignorant third-world citizens to exploit, they'd be dealing with a populace that consists of MILLIONS of educated individuals.

yeah

Zeitgeist Movies

Zeitgeist Movement

At 3/7/09 01:58 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 3/6/09 09:07 PM, Korriken wrote:
tell that to any people who are being oppressed. the idea that "the people can stop government from oppressing them" is on the same league as world peace.

If colonists thought that there would be no United States.

several things factored into that scenario.
1. the colonists were armed.
2. England was also fighting France and Spain at the time of the revolutionary war.
3. they were having trouble getting soldiers and supplies to the colonies from Britain. it took about 2 months to get a ship to Britain and 2 months getting back.
4. the popularity of the war in the eyes of the British declined over time and the government was pressured to end it.

Oh yeah and France, although that kind of backfired.

Yeah that didn't work out quite as planned.

My point is that such a world government would not have ignorant third-world citizens to exploit, they'd be dealing with a populace that consists of MILLIONS of educated individuals.

In America we have piles of ignorant people. In Britain they have piles of ignorant people. People as a whole are largely ignorant. With many technological advances in media, there are more than enough tools to keep the masses blind. The overconsumption of entertainment keeps the sheep blind to the wolves digging their way through the fence.

At 3/7/09 07:58 AM, Korriken wrote: I think I just got served. ok there's always a few exceptions to the rule. Also, ole Vlad would actually strengthen my argument. He was a cold hearted bastard that slaughtered masses of people in an effort to better his country. What would stop a global government from doing that? eliminate the middle east, kill everyone, in order to put a stop to the perpetual fighting in the name of world peace? it would be very effective.

It could, or it could be like Cyrus in that it's more of a benevolent force that understands that all it would really need from it's people is for them to pay their taxes and generally not uprise or anything like that. Which really the best way to do that is to pretty much let people continue on as they were. My general point to you was there's always two sides to every coin.

We could have any inefficient system on a global scale.

In some cases, we already do :)

Ya Rly. the crazies keep people aware of the possibility. the people yelling "THE END IS NEAR! REPENT!!" will someday be right. the world will eventually come to an end. be it by divine providence, a meteor, global warming, global freezing, or nuclear winter. Maybe the core of the planet will implode...

Absolutely, the end can come any day in any way. Why just last week we had a near miss on a gigantic meteor the scientists NEVER EVEN SAW COMING! It's a dangerous universe out there people, and it could all be over any day.

you found an exception to the rule. good job. once in a few thousand years an actual benevolent ruler emerges.

Yep, which means that the rule isn't an absolute. Which means as I said, you can't speak in absolutes when it comes to government (particularly anything that is not democratically elected)

When there is nothing to challenge power, then the people in power almost always oppresses the masses.

Um, what exactly keeps the US government from turning on us? I mean really? What are we gonna do? They have the tanks, the guns, the bombs...but wait a minute, they need people to work all those things don't they? People with training, skills, and all that...people they recruit from the public, the masses...and if you oppress the hell out of a soldier's family and friends, maybe he doesn't support you anymore...and if you do it to ENOUGH soldiers...suddenly you now got some pretty pissed off people who could be able to mount a challenge.

Or again, look at America, maybe the people in charge will feel like their jobs are enough, no need to try and stretch it out forever (surely there will be perks if their positions aren't permanent for once their term ends). Again, I'm not arguing FOR one world government because like you I can see the pitfalls, but I don't believe it HAS to be bad or evil or the end of all that is. Two sides to every coin remember?

True, but how many communist governments aren't basically dictatorships? Most communist governments are either single party governments with no competition, or the competition to the ruling party are completely incapable of getting a strong foothold. With any organization, there is a leader who calls the shots. Communism isn't inherently evil, this is true, but for everyone on earth to have the same standard of living, the thought of communism comes to mind.

But again, you're speaking of communism as it has been under the aegis of Stalin, or Mao. As I recall Lennon tried as best he could to do communism as it was meant to be done, and it failed miserably, but he himself was not a despotic ruler, that came with Stalin and after. Again, history shows us that a totalitarian rule can go two ways, benevolent, or despotic. But we as Americans have only seen, and been conditioned to believe totalitarianism has to mean wrongness, evil, and badness. My problem here isn't that I think single person or group rule is great (I think there's so many traps we can fall into with it that it's not worth doing, we just need more willingness to cooperate with each other) but to say it MUST be bad, or wrong, is to ignore history and just be incorrect and ignorant. It could just as easily turn out to be of benefit.

I could see a world government sorting out the problems of the world. It could be bloody. Round up everyone with aids, kill em. dispose of the corpses. Aids epidemic is over. Overpopulation a problem? massive lottery to see who dies. violence between 2 local factions? one or both have to go.

Could be. Or hey, it could NOT happen like that.

AIDS is a problem? Well now that there are no more national borders and competitiveness to be "the one that finds the cure" now ALL AIDS researchers are together with the very best facilities to work together and find a cure. Meantime we'll create better drugs to treat it.

Overpopulation solutions in the manner you have suggested have NOT been tried or condoned by any current totalitarian system I know of. The closest we get is China with it's "1 child per household law" which has indeed led to parents killing children that are female in some cases, but that is not the same as the government mandating "kill your kids to solve the problem". Again you're pointing to the most extreme examples of what COULD happen, but there's easily examples of wonderful good that could also occur.

True, but the difference is, they didn't give up the power.

Yes they did. They decided to follow the established rules and procedures of the Constitution and leave the office of power when they were told to. They decided NOT to try and pass laws that let them hang on, they decided NOT to stage a military coup to hang on. They DECIDED to leave. The Constitution in the end is just a piece of paper, and the only reason it has any significance is because the public and the governmental officials AGREE it does. If they stopped doing that, and decided to make a play for control, the Constitution no longer matters unless:

A) People fight the administration, individual, or group that decided to try and subvert it to take control for themselves.

B) Those people win, and re-uphold the rule of Constitutional law.

The only reason the American government works as well as it does is because everybody so far has agreed to play the game by the rules.

The power was taken from them and given to another person. If the president said, "Screw you, president elect, this is MY country!" He would have no backing from anyone else, which renders him powerless. Also, no political party in America has enough power to destroy the other. Even with wild swings in power balance between them, they know that saying, "This is our government, and we're banning other parties!" would cause a massive uprising. Ever hear of a king or a president for life willingly giving up power with no pressure and not give it to someone that will carry on the way they did? maybe, but it would be incredibly rare.

It would be, and no, I haven't really heard of that, but what if the world government is structured as basically a global democracy? Also I find your idea that someone, or some group or party, can't try to seize power in America because they'd find no backing extremely naieve and laughable. I think somebody could absolutely make a play for it, but the circumstances would have to be right for them to succeed. Hey, some people thought Hitler would stop when he got all that land back for Germany they lost in WW1. We all know how that worked out. Hitler also had the support of the people for what he was doing to by the way.

Sorry to double post, but I ran out of room with the last one:

Point taken, there are always exceptions to the rule. Seeing how local goverment is corrupt just about everywhere I go, regional/state governments are corrupt just about everywhere I go, national goverments are corrupt just about where in the world, it would be damned near impossible to say that a global government wouldn't be even worse. It would be like the UN with authority, and that;s scary.

But your experience is limited to this country, or to your area, you don't know about everywhere. The whole flaw in your argument here is that it's heavily based on your personal opinions and observations being "the rule", and also on certain naieveties as well. Again, I'm not for a world government, but to think we can all act like everybody else doesn't exist and we don't need to understand them or try to work with them is just crazyness to me.

At 3/7/09 05:19 PM, Korriken wrote:
In America we have piles of ignorant people. In Britain they have piles of ignorant people. People as a whole are largely ignorant. With many technological advances in media, there are more than enough tools to keep the masses blind. The overconsumption of entertainment keeps the sheep blind to the wolves digging their way through the fence.

Yes there is the possibility that they can plan something. But once it becomes clear, even if it's too late, I think people would resist.

I also think that a world government would see no point in oppression. Bad for the economy.

At 3/7/09 05:17 PM, Connor24 wrote: yeah

Zeitgeist Movies

Zeitgeist Movement

Aren't those the same guys who believe in 911 conspiracy theories? I wouldn't trust them as a reliable source for everything.

At 3/8/09 05:58 PM, KemCab wrote: So does capitalism, industrialization, and anything that expands our economic output. Were they all completely bad things?

Historically they were a sign of progress, but the transition to industrialization was a road of misery for common people.

People said that capitalism stifled opportunities and therefore communism was the only solution.

What opportunities? What? People said that capitalism enslaved people and a more humanistic/sosialistic way of production needed to be established, by the people for the people. Also I think you're mixing capitalism with free market, unchecked capitalists don't want free market, they seek to establish monopolies and conglomerates. The only reason they play by free marked, is to establish control over sea by bullying out the competition in those local markets.

Even though the median salary in the United States is $50,000 and that well over 90% of the workforce is still employed.

Statistics, you should always believe them, especially coming from conglomerate media.

Um, don't buy a $400,000 house if you can't afford it?

But building companies no longer make affordable homes do they? Which implies taking loans, which again implies, becoming slaves for half your life, just to pay off those loans. So what are the alternatives? Oh yeah there are none, it was made so that you have no other alternatives, besides living in a van.

How are you going to enforce having a whole bunch of small companies over the tendency for certain businesses to expand and become multinational corporations?

Why go multinational if not for world domination in the same vein that the US media has now. Just look at how they try to change Swedish laws in the piratebay trial, so that the big shots at the entertainment industry can suck more money for their collections of cars, living of off the effort of others.

And forget short term effects that affect only you. The Industrial Revolution displaced and ruined people's lives (i.e., child labor, worker abuse, etc.) but all in all it made our living standards better.

Not really, the unions and other socialist movements of people banding together had big hand in that, if it were up to capitalists in the good old days, we'd still be working 12 hour shifts. And in this day and age, it's coming closer to 12 hour shifts for some people if they want to maintain those living standards. It's mentioned in the film that everything gets more expensive while the wages stay the same.

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm all for worldwide collaboration, but the way things are going, it seems more like a global takeover by the banks. Hell even Abraham Lincoln hated the idea of banks taking over. Also democracy isn't what it's cracked out to be, the founding fathers hated the idea of democracy, that's why U.S.A was made a republic.

At 3/12/09 05:50 PM, amplefied wrote:

At 3/8/09 05:58 PM, KemCab wrote:

Historically they were a sign of progress, but the transition to industrialization was a road of misery for common people.

The fact that Birth rates were declining while population exploded should be a flashing red light that the contemporary depiction of the working poor during the industrialization was a period of degregation and moral depravity... There most certainly was squalor... But you need to compare the industrial age to previous ages. Things like meat, milk and coffee were luxury goods... As were things like soap. They were made cheap because some rich bastard decided that he would invest capital into a giant factory that could produce goods cheeply enough for larger markets to be able to buy them.

What opportunities? What? People said that capitalism enslaved people and a more humanistic/sosialistic way of production needed to be established, by the people for the people. Also I think you're mixing capitalism with free market, unchecked capitalists don't want free market, they seek to establish monopolies and conglomerates. The only reason they play by free marked, is to establish control over sea by bullying out the competition in those local markets.

Monopolies and Conglomerates cannot exist in a purely hands-off Free market system. I do agree with you that most business men would enjoy economic privileges handed to them by the government... Tarrifs were particularly effective after the civil war in bringing about companies that didn't have foreign competition. I believe big business would still be around if it was not for the tariffs, but it would be much more difficult to maintain giant market shares. All the more necessary that government is kept from granting these priviledges to businesses.

Watch this for a detailed explanation about the myths of 'natural monopoly'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2HXyfe_t CE

watch this if you are more pressed for time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYTgwzHU6 xg

Statistics, you should always believe them, especially coming from conglomerate media.

Occam's razor... Do you ignore information relayed by all news sources? the warnings of Lou Dobbs? Olberman?

But building companies no longer make affordable homes do they? Which implies taking loans, which again implies, becoming slaves for half your life, just to pay off those loans. So what are the alternatives? Oh yeah there are none, it was made so that you have no other alternatives, besides living in a van.

I have serious problems with people who hold so much scorn for basic economic reasoning...

OK... First of all, it doesn't pay for a business to only build houses for a particular market. Building more expensive houses only doesn't necessarily mean you'll make more profit because the houses are larger. First... You're restricting your market, businesses of other types don't only sell expensive items and I'd be silly ... Jewlers... unless specialized in certain areas, would not make any money if they tried selling million dollar jewlery only in a middle class neighborhood... If the costs of building a house are high you'll only do it if you can actually sell it to someone... And even then the costs of housing like any other business is bid down.

Why go multinational if not for world domination in the same vein that the US media has now. Just look at how they try to change Swedish laws in the piratebay trial, so that the big shots at the entertainment industry can suck more money for their collections of cars, living of off the effort of others.

I don't understand what you just said here sorry to say. When people complain that small businesses are being forced out... unless it's because of the government forcing them out dirrectly or indirrectly... any complaints on the matter are emotionalist by nature... one only holds love for a small business precisely because it's small... Regardless of how well it can serve the needs of consumers. By this logic a medieval economy with labor guilds and artisans where people lived on average to the age of 35 would be more desirable than 'big bad business'

And forget short term effects that affect only you. The Industrial Revolution displaced and ruined people's lives (i.e., child labor, worker abuse, etc.) but all in all it made our living standards better.

Not really, the unions and other socialist movements of people banding together had big hand in that, if it were up to capitalists in the good old days, we'd still be working 12 hour shifts. And in this day and age, it's coming closer to 12 hour shifts for some people if they want to maintain those living standards. It's mentioned in the film that everything gets more expensive while the wages stay the same.

Child labor was virtually gone by the time the first child labor laws were enacted... by 1930 only 6.4 percent of childeren between the ages of 10-15 were employed, and 3/4ths of those were employed in FARMING.

This 1 hour video will probably address all of your labor superstitions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2q0RUzQ lY

Regardless... labor, both in quality and in price, is like any other commodity on the market. Call me inhumane if you like but the fact that it IS a commodity. Businessmen must compete for labor in the same way they must compete for commodities. in order to keep his workers from striking and disrupting his business rockefeller payed his workers above the national average. Henry Ford became famous for his "5 dollar a day" plan... also meant to keep them from going on strike... Buisness men don't like workers going on strike, and workers want to be paid as much as they can get... In this case the buisnessman and the worker have interests in harmony.

The same thing applies to hours and conditions... you can offer LESS pay than another business, but at the same time offer less hours and better conditions...

The Video is finally out!

Enjoy.

At 3/12/09 09:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The fact that Birth rates were declining while population exploded

Wait, how can birth rates decline while the population exploded? Do you mean a decline in population after an explosion of population?

But you need to compare the industrial age to previous ages. Things like meat, milk and coffee were luxury goods... As were things like soap. They were made cheap because some rich bastard decided that he would invest capital into a giant factory that could produce goods cheeply enough for larger markets to be able to buy them.

Wait what? Do you mean on the farms, with cows and crops and all that, or in the process of urbanization? Also humanity has been using soap like stuff since the dawn of civilization.

Are you reffering to industrialisation in U.S or Europe? If you look at say Russia and Norway, where the socialistic movements were very strong, which were direct reactions to industrialisation.

Monopolies and Conglomerates cannot exist in a purely hands-off Free market system.

Yeah, they would become the market.

Occam's razor... Do you ignore information relayed by all news sources?

No, I just distrust statistics, they have been misused something awfully by pseudo science to get people to believe anything.

OK... First of all, it doesn't pay for a business to only build houses for a particular market. Building more expensive houses only doesn't necessarily mean you'll make more profit because the houses are larger. First... You're restricting your market, businesses of other types don't only sell expensive items and I'd be silly ... Jewlers... unless specialized in certain areas, would not make any money if they tried selling million dollar jewlery only in a middle class neighborhood... If the costs of building a house are high you'll only do it if you can actually sell it to someone... And even then the costs of housing like any other business is bid down.

The problem I'm trying to point out is not how the buisnesses are supposed to function in an idealistic world, but the banks that control them. First the banks fool people to get these loans that will never get paid off, the media jumps on the bandwagon and make these loans seem feasable and too good to be true and give them to anyone. So people spend everything on hoses and cars and what not and live happily in dept. Which leads to the financial crisis we see today, mortgages go up people can't pay and the banks now fully own all your property which is of lesser worth now. All in the name of excess living, just cause that's how they show you should live on TV. Consumerism and inslavement at their finest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT2Wg7lVY As

I don't understand what you just said here sorry to say. When people complain that small businesses are being forced out... unless it's because of the government forcing them out dirrectly or indirrectly... any complaints on the matter are emotionalist by nature... one only holds love for a small business precisely because it's small... Regardless of how well it can serve the needs of consumers. By this logic a medieval economy with labor guilds and artisans where people lived on average to the age of 35 would be more desirable than 'big bad business'

Why are you discussing small businesses when I'm discussing global influence of multinational U.S corporations and industries? Do whatever you want in your country, but as soon as things like outsourcing take place where these companies establishes themselves in the local economy overseas, those goverments will become powerless since if they start making a fuss those corporations can easily move somewhere else, damaging the economy. This usually occurs in poorer countries. Hence exploitation, but hey, better let them suffer so that we can get fat, that's the motto.

Child labor was virtually gone by the time the first child labor laws were enacted... by 1930 only 6.4 percent of childeren between the ages of 10-15 were employed, and 3/4ths of those were employed in FARMING.

Those laws don't really work worldwide do they? Hense Nike sweatshops child labour.

This 1 hour video will probably address all of your labor superstitions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2q0RUzQ lY

Regardless... labor, both in quality and in price, is like any other commodity on the market. Call me inhumane if you like but the fact that it IS a commodity. Businessmen must compete for labor in the same way they must compete for commodities. in order to keep his workers from striking and disrupting his business rockefeller payed his workers above the national average. Henry Ford became famous for his "5 dollar a day" plan... also meant to keep them from going on strike... Buisness men don't like workers going on strike, and workers want to be paid as much as they can get... In this case the buisnessman and the worker have interests in harmony.

The same thing applies to hours and conditions... you can offer LESS pay than another business, but at the same time offer less hours and better conditions...

In an ideal world yeah, but this is only an idealistic and somewhat limited way of seeing things, especially in a world where national borders begin to lose their meaning and buisnesses operate on worldwide basis. What does a puny strike mean to a huge multinational buisness when a small branch of their workforce is being unruly? Nothing. The worst of all is that all the lobbying and contracts and jurisdictional jargon that they put to try and trap their workforce from making a fuss.

At 3/13/09 06:19 AM, JackTipper wrote: The Video is finally out!

Enjoy.

I downloaded and am watching it right now. Makes a lot of sense. I have always felt these things. I always knew Obama was a bit too much Hollywood and fake to keep a lid on the truth. Sure enough, this movie is a big hit.
I have my ammo already bought when the revolution comes.

pew pew, headshot. pew pew, headshot

At 3/13/09 12:23 PM, groundpwndr wrote:

pew pew, headshot. pew pew, headshot

Age/Gender: 32, Male
Job: loser

Shit he can vote...unless he lied about his age...please God let him have lied about his age...