US bounty on Charles Taylor

bonkey

Gents,

go and read over your past few posts. I'm sure you'll find the reasoning behind the next statement :

attack the post, not the poster.

I'm not warning anyone on this thread again. Either keep to the rules, or be kept off the forum.

Your choice.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
government ownership of private industry.

?????

Originally posted by Geromino
Name one cartel or monopoly that is US based.

Monopoly - Microsoft? While technically not a monopoly, it behaves like one. Also Intel, AOL Time Warner, Fox News in segments of their markets.

Cartel - Hollywood?

Originally posted by Geromino
And government ownership is the most direct way of government subsidizing.

So the interstate highway system is communism?

Geromino

Originally posted by Victor
????? Monopoly - Microsoft? While technically not a monopoly, it behaves like one. Also Intel, AOL Time Warner, Fox News in segments of their markets.

Cartel - Hollywood? So the interstate highway system is communism?

PC industry Corporations:
Dell
Gateway
Apple
HP/Compaq

Software Industry Companies
Intel
IBM
I2
Microsoft

However, you can see a more complete list at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/_techno-cmpsrv.html

Communcation Companies
NBC
CBS via Viacom
ABC via Disney
WB
UPN
Univision (Spanish television in US)
Fox
CNN
and several independent stations.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Name one cartel or monopoly that is US based.

Monopoly - as Visctor pointed out - Microsoft.

You may remember they lost a landmark case recently where they were found to have illegally leveraged their effective monopoly in one market segment to influence other markets.

Cartel - (Once again, from Stiglitz' "Globalisation and its Discontents") The US government were the driving force behind the creation of a world-wide aluminium-production cartel.

jc

Venom

Originally posted by Wicknight
This is just another sign that Bush, no matter how "good intentioned" he may be, doesn't actually live on a little planet I like to call Earth. He probably has this idea that Africa is like the wild west, and that law doesn't exist there.

Imagine if the British put a bounty on Gerry Adams head when he is in the Republic.

I think it would be more akin to them putting a bounty on Adam's head after the cease fire.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Monopoly - as Visctor pointed out - Microsoft.

You may remember they lost a landmark case recently where they were found to have illegally leveraged their effective monopoly in one market segment to influence other markets.

Cartel - (Once again, from Stiglitz' "Globalisation and its Discontents") The US government were the driving force behind the creation of a world-wide aluminium-production cartel.

jc

It all depends on how you define the anti-trust laws, one from the US and the one from Europe. I do concede however, that the EU has a much different approach to anti-trust laws than the US. So, it all depends on your point of reference, now does it. Yet, here is whet I believe was the crux of the case in the US.

As with the aluminum cartel, I would need time to review the anti-trust cases that permenated the Supreme court from 1910 through 1956 (which I think you are referring to).

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
PC industry Corporations:
Dell
Gateway
Apple
HP/Compaq

MS isn't a PC manufacturer.

Software Industry Companies
Intel
IBM
I2
Microsoft

What OS do IBM and Intel develop?

Communcation Companies
NBC
CBS via Viacom
ABC via Disney
WB
UPN
Univision (Spanish television in US)
Fox
CNN
and several independent stations.

Who owns Fox, CNN, NBC? What amount of the market are these companies now allowed to own as compared to 6 months ago (of course Congress wants to roll them back, a move Bush has threatened to veto.)

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Not in the best interests of the United States and its sovereignty. Again the tangled web that is woven.

Not sure if you've read it. It specifically refers to Egypt and a violation of it's sovereignty by a country known as Israel. Nothing at all to do with US sovereignty. But according to you that's the single most important priority of a country. It's so important to the US that it vetoed attempts by the UN to get Israel to respect another countries sovereignty.

The NPT does allow testing and development. From the UN web site: "The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance. "

Ummm that doesn't say anything about testing being allowed.

Look at the history of the UN and understand why it was set up that way. Then you would understand why your statement looks so rediculous.

Their stated reasons or real intentions?
It's so ridiculous an idea that it's been hotly debated
"for more than a decade"

News Flash: Bush dropped the tarriffs. On a similar note, it has been advocated by Gephardt, Dean, and Edwards that tariffs are required to save American jobs and the steel industry. Not exactly a Republican agenda exclusively.

News Flash: He dropped them because the WTO ruled that they were illegal...and what single most important priority, according to you, would that be contrary to?

A majority of Iraqis want Saddam gone. Now, this is not to say that they want American troops there either. Those are mutually exclusive, Sovtek, unless you really believe the Iraqis want Saddam back in power

I was refering to US soldiers being transported by Shannon airport in Ireland.

That is what I said all along, Sovtek. However, it it becomes a government, no matter what political system is in place, many countries would leave.

Probably, but it isn't meant to be nor is a world government. It's an org to arbitrate between countries. If it's a cartel then so is the Supreme Court.
I fact we are bound by the UN Charter as we are signitories to it as well as our Constitution states that we have to honor treaties we sign.

The single important issue of any nation is national sovereignty. I do not think you would be willing to have someone who is of French, British, or Italian citizen to make decisions for Ireland's resource uses when they are not going to use those resources at all

That would be the EU not the UN. Ireland has political representation in the EU like all the other EU nations.

Politics, my dear, is not about telling how great your country is nor how messed up theirs is.

It's good that you realize that and it might help you to talk to other people in other countries about politics should you choose to.

There is a huge difference between traveling, whether for personal or business, and living in another foreign country.

I agree completely

I have been exclusively dealing with traveling, Sovtek when to discuss and when not to discuss politics in any region or country.

You said that you choose not to because it can get you into trouble. I said my experience has been that it's only in the US where you have to worry about that.

There are some things Sovtek that are learned by experience and cannot be taught by books nor found on the internet. However, we are all guilty of "not providing links" while stating our opinions and thus are novices, at least by your defintion or does it not apply to you.

I never said otherwise. I said that you can't really comment on what Vader has experienced or not experienced because you don't know.

However, I was speaking exclusively at traveling and talking international politics. And again, generally you do not discuss such things no matter which country you are from. It does not matter which citizen you are or even which color of your skin, there are groups who will not like you for one reason or another.

Thats your opinion and your welcome to it. However, your statement about Vader's knowledge and experienced is based on nothing more than his disagreeing with you.

This is so priceless with the SWP propoganda. First of all, the Sherman Anti-trust Act prohibits monopolies and cartels.

Firstly I'm not a Socialist nor a member of any political group.
Secondly...the anti-trust laws are meant to do just that...doesn't mean they do. How many years was Bell around?

Name one cartel or monopoly that is US based.

A few people in here beat me to that.

However, the Maastricht Treaty allows government ownership of private industry. You do not have that in the United States.

Yea our government just gives them billions in subsidies and tax breaks as well as uses MIT to research and develop new technology to give to businesses...for free.
So it's ok to give rich people billions by it's not ok to give poor people a basic living.

You must not have had a loving father then Sovtek.

My loving father doesn't have a million dollars. That misses the point that GWB seemingly loving father has bailed little Bush out of every failed business deal.

President Bush did not go to law school at Yale. He went there for undergraduate work. Second, althoug the Univesity of Texas is an excellent school, so is Yale and Harvard.

I'm not saying that the University of Texas isn't a good college. My point was that Bush couldn't get into a state school but he could get into one of the most prestigious colleges in the country who his father happened to be an alumni.
You said:
"Everyone has an equal opportunity to make or brake themselves Vader. And it is not dependent on who your father is, your sir name, your grandmother, your uncle, or even an ancestor."
That little fact suggests your wrong.

Again, the question is how. Germany also has one of the highest tax incidences in Europe. A tradeoff between trying to reduce poverty and the willingness to be taxed, have less purchasing power, and rely more on government for the most basic necessities.

Necessities like free 3rd level education to everyone. Making the population equally educated so as to get better jobs, to make more money and have better purchasing power for everyone (oh and having fewer people needing to rely on government).

I would rather have my family take care of me, not government, when I am ill.

That's your choice. It would seem that most people in America don't have that choice. In Germany they don't need a rich uncle to survive.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
It all depends on how you define the anti-trust laws, one from the US and the one from Europe. I do concede however, that the EU has a much different approach to anti-trust laws than the US. So, it all depends on your point of reference, now does it. Yet, here is whet I believe was the crux of the case in the US.

MS has been found guilty by the US for its actions in the US and it is a US-based company. If that doesn't qualify it as a US monopoly, I don't know what does.

As with the aluminum cartel, I would need time to review the anti-trust cases that permenated the Supreme court from 1910 through 1956 (which I think you are referring to).

Nope - I was referring to the one established in late '93. If you do a google on "aluminium cartel" you should have no problems finding a few thousand links to it. If you include the word "Stiglitz" in your search, you're more than likely to be spot on the money with the first couple of hits.

jc

bonkey

On another point, I don't believe Sherman does prevent monopolies. Isn't it more a case that it is supposed to prevent unfair leverage of a monopoly - which is subtly different. There si nothing wrong with MS being a monopoly - which it technically qualifies as I believe. The problem comes when it uses its monopoly position to either unfairly squash competition and/or influence other markets. (A cartel, by definition, is engaged in such detrimental activity, so they are out from the word go).

Also, picking up on something else which is going on...it is highly unlikely that the US caved to the WTO's demands because the WTO ruled against them. It is far more likley that they did so because the WTO opened the way for significant sanctions which the EU, Japanese, Swedish et al were smart enough to target directly at products which come from key States Bush will need to win.

Had next year not been an election year, or had the EU just applied some reasonable tarrifs across the board, there is a good chance that Bush may have toughed it out...especially because the lower dollar means that the tarrifs wouldn't hurt quite as much. However, because it is an election year coming up, and because the aggrieved nations (EU et al) were looking at things like 300% tarrifs on orange juice from Florida.....there was simply no way Bush could ignore the threat. To do so would have almost unquestionably cost him the election.

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
On another point, I don't believe Sherman does prevent monopolies.

Correct - it doesn't. Which is why it's the Sherman Antitrust Act rather than the Sherman Antimonopoly Act and why the Acts that followed were also named antitrust acts.

brief history



Comment on the MS decision

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino Ah, how about those same UN resolutions Vader as reason for national sovereignty. UN resolution 686 and 1441. Oh what a tangled web we live in Vader.

UN resolution 686 and 1441 have no relevance what so ever to national sovereignty, 686 deals with weapon inspectors, 1441 is meaningless. 1441 is too open to interpretation, well that’s not correct. Its very clear but the US misinterpreted it. It asks Saddam to comply or else. The or else was to be decided by the UN. Saddam was complying, the US were unhappy so they said they would decide the what else and this was the beginning of the whole league of nation thing debate in the US.

For those reasons, as well as terrorism in general, were the reasons for going into Iraq. You seem to forget that every nation wanted Saddam out of power. The question was how? And with someone like Saddam, the only way was by force. The UN Inspections were from 1991 through 1998 and from 1998 to 2002, the weapon inspections were, for the most part, irrelevant.

Yes they didn’t work because they were irrelevant. When Saddam realized there was a real threat of war he cooperated. Fully. That’s what Blix said. He also said there was little to find but he would find it this time because of the huge change in attitude. Every country wanted Saddam out. Few wanted America in. That why ppl wouldn’t approve the or else. Some countries believe in democracy and negotiation. The US vetoed the resolution calling for no or else for a while, to give the inspectors time. Remember? It was all over the free media here in Europe.

We should have went to war back in 1998 Vader, but the UN security council was more concerned with outdoing other countries than with keeping current UN resolutions. The UN has now become another League of Nations.

Outdoing other countries? The UN wants all its resolutions enforced. When one of the big 5 continuously veto resolutions and defy others then other countries say hey, why should we have to. The UN was opposed to war in 1998. It was opposed to war in 2003 as well. What had changed? Kosovo, the US had proven it could act without the UN and that NATO was a credible military force. Why not use NATO this time. Well after the misinformation, war crimes and dishonorable conduct of the US during that conflict France and Germany decided they didn’t want to work with America again.

Second, have you ever heard of the start treaties. Of course you did not.

Ive heard of SALT, START agus le leithéid. Do you remember what we were talking about earlier Re: arrogance

Otherwise you would not have made a rediculous statement like you did about stockpiling WMD's. Mutually Assured Destruction is the defense doctrine during teh 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and present. However, the US is part of the nonproliferation treaty as a whole and there are certain conditions to have weapons as long as you do not sell those secrets.

The US is part of the nonproliferation treaty, yeah I know but you wouldn’t think it. SDI is specifically prohibited under the nonproliferation treaty.
The US has a huge arsenal of WMDs which it is currently augmenting. That is not speculation or a secret. You discussed the US's development of chemical and biological WMDs in another thread on this forum. Is your memory slipping or is this selective ignorance?
The US sold its secrets to Israel, one of the worst terrorist states in the world.

Third, the UN is not a government, at lest that was Kofi Annan keeps stating.

And this has any baring on what I was saying because.....?
I said the UN is the cornerstone of international law and that the US is "undercutting" it.

It is a cartel and its decisions have very little legal weight.

Very little weight on the US. The UN is a very powerful organization, unfortunately it needs US approval for everything it does.

The WTO has more legal weight than the World Court.

Because the US wants the WTO to have more power than the WC. What does that show? That the US are all for a global economy where business can exploit workers, undermine national sovereignty, violate environmental laws and still operate freely all over the world. That is sick and disgusting IMO. I don’t care if it would be legal as the law would be distorted and unjust. The US is a bully holding the world to randsom.

You want a world government Vader.

One would think you should have put a question mark their but they'll see the reason for this presumptuous arrogance next:

If Ireland cannot accept the EU laws wholeheartedly, then how in the world would you expect to keep UN laws. A world government will be a bad idea Vader and countries like Russia, China, US, England, France, England, and some others would leave the UN faster than you can say whatever.

How many times Geriminaminuminamino have I asked you to stop attaching points to the end of my arguments? You can remember cant you? No slight amnesia or anything? Nobody falls for it, everybody can see when a "novice" (as you say) cant counter an argument so he alters the argument to make it seem more absurd.
Btw I noticed the way you didn’t want to name just the big 5 imperialist so you counted England twice. :rolleyes:

When you are a leader in the world, then certain expectations are assumed.

You're starting to scare me Geromino, a said that Bush II and other Americans feel they have some sort of Divine right and you don’t deny it. Actually you sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

It takes a leader to make hard choices and decisions that some or most would not agree with. However, a leader needs to make those decisions and accept the specific consequences with those decisions. This is not to say that if the decision did not turn out the way it was expected, the leader should resign. Hell, if we had that, then every company or government would not have anyone left above file clerk to make any decisions.

Again you are going back to an earlier point, I don’t think that ppl should resign but they should learn from their mistakes. If X didn’t solve the problem last time, then X wont solve it this time. Ive said this before, we discussed this before, a logical end was reached which you couldn’t fault, there is in point in retracing this point. Your problem seems to be that you have been indoctrinated, you have been given answers to all the questions you could be asked to counter your doctrine and you have learnt them well.

If you cant think of anything new to defend your argument and you cant fault my answers then what does that signify? You have begun to resort to repetition, character slurs and your replies are taking longer, I think our debate is drawing to a conclusion and I don’t think you are winning. What makes this worse for you is that if those slurs you have made against me are true, and it doesn’t really matter if you believe they are, and I best you then I'm worried what this will do to your self esteem.

Originally posted by me
You used an analogy whereby you compared America to a faulty kidney/bladder. I agreed with you and said that America is faulty and that this fault should not be tolerated. You cannot say I only see what I want to see when I look into your analogies and see something you didn’t. Are you saying that looking at history in hindsight wont tell you weather in hindsight a course of action was right or wrong? Of course it will, that’s why your so opposed to it. You see evidence which you both agree with and understand that tells you that you or your country was wrong about something. I wasn’t trying to rub it in, I was saying that we should draw lessons from history. You cant accept this reasoning, you don’t admit that you or America were wrong but at the same time say that the opponents of America’s course of action were only lucky to be proved right.

No Vader, avoiding politics is a necessity when traveling. I would be very angry, probably down right rude, if someone came up to me out of the blue and asked me my political idealogies without any reference or reason. And when you start talking about politics, you can find yourself in peculiar circumstances and can be greeted with the utmost contempt in that region, village, community, or nation. And it will not matter if the country is best friends with your country or even the reverse.

Remember the three things I said that would make such a discussion impossible? What was number 2? That’s right being an arrogant bástard, and what is prevalent in your scenario? An arrogant bustard. Really geriminominamino either your not reading my posts, your memory is slipping, you're lying to me or you're lying to yourself. Either way you haven’t done anything to contradict my argument.

You are a novice when it comes to international traveling and international politics. You have a lot to learn Vader and you are very far from even getting to understanding the basic principles of international politics.

Tut, tut, tut. The only thing that could possibly be based on is my disagreement with your arguments. There is a lot that could be said about that statement but I'll take the high road.

Vader

sorry, 1000 characters again

Capitalism creates ingenuity, innovation, change, and opporturnity. Socialism does not. However, in a complex society, checks and balances need to be in place so that no one can take advantage of other weaknesses. These regulations are needed. What is not needed are regulations that allow individuals

What you are describing is socialism. There are 3 definitions of socialism. When I say socialism, I mean the form of political and economic society found in Ireland agus like states. In Ireland you are free to be enterprising, but the State wouldn’t let you exploit ppl. The State protects its citizens. It enforces their rights, provide jobs and equal opportunity and looks after the less well off. The ESB is a semi-state body (for the time being). Lets compare it to capitalist(American) energy companies. It has an impeccable ethical business record. It doesn’t have to please shareholders and so keeps honest accounts. There is a shortage of capital for expansion (not a plc) so in order to grow it must become efficient and reliable. It has been given to contract for running Americas largest power grid. Hmmm. Enough said.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to make or brake themselves Vader. And it is not dependent on who your father is, your sir name, your grandmother, your uncle, or even an ancestor. We have no heriditary titles in my country. We have no lord of the mannor, so to speak.

If you could hear that through the ears of somebody who hasn’t been indoctrinated you would either laugh of shudder.
In order to have equal opportunities one must have an equal opportunity for education, equal protection from uncontrollable events such as acts of god and health problems, and one must feel the consequences of bad decisions and unemployment equally. None of those things happen in America. You are not what you make of yourself. In Ireland ppl are equal, in my home town of Portlaoise millionaires live within half a mile of ppl on the minimum wage. Their children go to the same school, if a Shaw(the name of this particular rich family) were to give a job in their store to their children instead of one of their neighbours children they would have to prove that their son/daughter was more qualified than the other applicants. Mr O'Brien got a managerial job ahead of one of the Shaws. That’s equality. That’s making something of yourself. That’s right.

Personal issues ranging from alcoholism to drug use to domestic abuse can play very much in the effect of how one lives or not live. And in economic terms, you cannot get rid of poverty given human emotion. Eliminate human emotion, then we might have a chance. But then again, eliminate human emotion and we beocme robots and lose our humanity.

That is blatant propaganda. Poop ppl are just lazy alcoholics/drug addicts they are (in America) often the victims of a society designed to create a two tier system so as to utilize cheap labour, exploit the ppl and allow a small minority to live like and exercise the power of deities.

To try to explain to you what Constitutional Law is in only a short sentene or two is going to be impossible. My suggestion to you is to read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. This would give you a good beginning of the American Constitution. If you want other references after that, then I could happily point them out.

I didn’t ask any constitutional question. I want to know the advantages of privatizing healthcare and social welfare. I want to know how profit making
organizations can be asked to be benevolent and charitable and still make profits. Only a gov/society can reap the long term benefits of charity (if you're only considering monetary gain). Then you spout on about how the red cross and other charities make up the difference. If they did why is poverty such a huge problem in the USA. The huge problem in the US is its attitude towards poverty, a flawed attitude which you share.

The best organization to help those in need (poor) are nonprofit organizations like Red Cross, Feed the Children, churches, civic groups, etc. Government should and only should help in providing the ability, not the sole support. And because of the thousands of organizations that can offer to help, then that is where I make my reference.

Then why is most social welfare provided by states in America provided by Lockheed Martin, a profit making organization and how can a charity with limited resources better meet the needs of the ppl than the richest government in the world? That’s just plain stupidity, greed and cruel indifference.

Apparently, you have never met a fundamentalist Hindu, Muslim or Buhdist, have you. However, when it comes to faith of any religion, one will be absolutely sure that his/her religion is the true religion.

No I have never met a fundamentalist Buddhist, I would have thought it a contradiction in terms. Just because you're sure you're right doesn’t mean you cant be tolerant of those that are wrong. Look at us, I'm sure America is flawed and revolting, with exploitation of the ppl and gross inequality but Im not going to build a bomb or go to war to civilize America. Im just going to try to educate you and any body else I can, and if I can do that much maybe you and others can educate more and eventually the ppl of America will seek their rights. Although you're more likely one of the oppressors than the oppressed.

Newspapers and Chomsky are not sources that I would call outstanding sources.

Then you are judging credible sources on their agreement with America and are being biased stubborn arrogant and closed minded. There is no open minded person who would discredit Chomsky so Im guessing you've never truly read his work. Its objective, thorough, detailed, referenced and deals with both cause and effect. Its not one sided and its obvious why he is acclaimed from all corners.

There are some on the web that I do prefer, but I do read seveal books a year. I also use a web site called Questia which is an online book source. However, you have not lived as long as I have, or at least I think from your posts. Experience is the best teacher Vader.

There is no substitute for experience, except maybe the intelligence to comprehend what it before you. But as all ready discussed in this thread, experience is nit the be all and end all. You are after making a statement however that I want either referenced or withdrawn: what age are you? Where have you traveled to? And in what capacity?

Vader, you got the anology completely around. The anology was not the kidney disease to constrast American policy in particular. It was was an anology on those who observe and draw conclusions that fit into a nice neat box. And as you could see, there was more than one reason, some even a bit obscure that could bring light why that was happening, but it was not as straightforward as one would suggest.

No I took your analogy they way it was meant, you implied America was misunderstood, I say I understand perfectly. Notice the way the man in your analogy doesn’t go round pissing on people or on their houses. Not a very apt analogy.

Originally posted by sovtek
As said before...if your an arrogant bastard...yea ya might want to avoid telling people how great your country is and how f$cked up theirs is.

Also it might be handy not to tell people that they are too primitive to understand the reason their country is focked up.

Originally posted by sovtek
Firstly you don't have a clue about Vader's international prowess. Just because you went to Asia to exploit the people for business purposes doesn't mean that any number of us in here haven't seen and done some things in this world. I'm sorry but if anyones a novice here...judging by posts anyway...it ain't Vader.

Originally posted by sovtekIf you want to argue politics it's better to back up your arguments rather than say "I know more than you".

That's rich when you consider El Presidente Bush. LOL
He couldn't get accepted into University of Texas law school but he gets accepted by, where was it? YALE?

Ireland has a very clear points system to make sure everybody has equal opportunities in education. Its also free. If all men are created equally and you are what you make of yourself then America should too.

Yea but you can do alot toward reducing it and making it's effects less drastic. Compare Germany and US for a prime example.

Germany has a very different history and society to America. Lets take Canada for geriminominos convenience. Canada is fairly similar to America in some ways. It was *founded* by the same ppl more or less, around the same time yet it developed into a totally different country. It has a rate of unemployment twice that of the US yet virtually no ppl live below the poverty line compared to Americas 13% of the total pop. Why? It has the same ethnic diversity, it has very liberal gun laws, yet few crime. Why do ppl enjoy a better standard of living in Canada even though the same companies operate in Canada. The Gov has less money to play around with than the US, go mór mór when the country is exploited the way it is by America.

Vader

Damn it, I posted my reply after reading page 3, didnt see page 4.
Lots I could say to you Geromino, but I think its been summed up well.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey


Also, picking up on something else which is going on...it is highly unlikely that the US caved to the WTO's demands because the WTO ruled against them. It is far more likley that they did so because the WTO opened the way for significant sanctions which the EU, Japanese, Swedish et al were smart enough to target directly at products which come from key States Bush will need to win.

I agree but my point was about sovereignty.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
MS has been found guilty by the US for its actions in the US and it is a US-based company. If that doesn't qualify it as a US monopoly, I don't know what does.

Microsoft is not a monopoly by definition because it only has about a 90% market share of the OS market. Linux and Apple are the other two competitors, Bonkey, but have minute market share. However, if you want a pure example of a monopoly, De Beers would definitely qualify. Every retail jewelry store buys its diamonds from De Beers.

Nope - I was referring to the one established in late '93. If you do a google on "aluminium cartel" you should have no problems finding a few thousand links to it. If you include the word "Stiglitz" in your search, you're more than likely to be spot on the money with the first couple of hits.

jc

Thanks for the heads up. I checked on a couple of things and Stiglitz is, IMO, a sophisticated Paul Kruger. However, let me put you some things in perspective that I believe Stilgitz ignores. This is a more accurate analysis of the international alumuminum cartel situation in which Stiglitz was referring to In the article, the Justice Dept wanted to prosecute but could not find any direct evidence. However, given the nature of the problem, the stort term result was more stabilizing than one realizes. It is also worth noting that economitric analysis could not distinguish between the nature of the growth of the world economy (one of the principle reasons why prices increase, called inflation), and the emperical link to a cartel. However, I do agree generally that cartels are for the most part harmful to the average consumer. However, what is even more harmful is deflation, which is what was occuring in 1992 in the aluminum market. When you have deflation, companies will go bankrupt, workers will be laid off, and a recession or depression in the industry at least, and the economy as a whole, could happen. Nevertheless, more emperical data and analysis will need to be determined to make a more accurate prediction.

There is no law directly preventing monopolies. However, if you look at the Standard Oil case in 1910 and compare it to other cases that ensued, you will begin to realize tha the Sherman anti-trust law prevents bad monopolies and olgopoloies. But the only cartel that is positive in any regard is OPEC and the WTO will not touch that issue with a ten mile pole.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Damn it, I posted my reply after reading page 3, didnt see page 4.
Lots I could say to you Geromino, but I think its been summed up well.

Vader, I will respond to you shortly. Also, I will also post some additional information about Microsoft, cartels and its economic impact, and how the Sherman Anti Turst Law impacts the prevention of monopolies in matter of case law also at the same time.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Microsoft is not a monopoly by definition

So you're saying that a US court of law did not judge Microsoft both to have a monopoly and to be abusing the monopolistic powers that it had?????

This is a more accurate analysis of the international alumuminum cartel situation in which Stiglitz was referring to

By what yardstick do you judge it to be more accurate? I'm not knocking the resource (I haven't had a chance to read it yet), but I'm just curious as to how you are coming to that conclusion? The accounts differ, sure, but what makes your choice of source more accurate as opposed to just alternate?

jc

Vader

Originally posted by bonkey

By what yardstick do you judge it to be more accurate? I'm not knocking the resource (I haven't had a chance to read it yet), but I'm just curious as to how you are coming to that conclusion? The accounts differ, sure, but what makes your choice of source more accurate as opposed to just alternate?

jc

See heres a point of difference that arose between geromino and myself before, who gets to say whats a credible source. I do remember geromino saying he doesnt belive Chomsky or the BCC are totally credible sources, those are the best two I can think of. Maybe something the mods should agree on and lay down a list of approved sources?

Zaphod B

I don't usually wander onto Politics but occasionally a gem comes along.

Originally posted by Geromino

You should never include politics when you travel Vader. It spoils the conversation quickly and makes the instigator as one who is snobby.

Not at all. It 'makes' the instigator as one who is prepared to discuss real issues with people face-to-face (you know, as opposed to online where you have time to prepare your arguments), instead of "Gee, what nice lakes you have in your country". I'm not afraid to talk about politics on my travels; I guess I just like to hear other people's opinions and discuss them. Yes, even in America.

Originally posted by Geromino

You are what you make of yourself where I come from.

It's good to see that hilarious one-liners did not die with Bob Hope
That is possibly the most laughable comment I have read on these boards in months. If your comment were true then George Bush would surely be the most hard-working man in the USA, the man more dedicated than any other man in the nation to the cause of representing the people of said nation. Do you want us to believe he is that man? Do you honestly expect us to believe that all his life, George Bush has worked his ass off to achieve the goal of representing the people of the USA?

You're right, in the USA you are what you make of yourself. African-Americans, Hispanic Amerians, Asian-Americans, WOMEN... clearly they're just not working hard enough. Would Native American tribes have not been driven off their land if only they'd put some effort in? Sigh.

Victor

WEe are getting a bit off topic here and this is one way to bring it back on-topic.

Originally posted by Geromino
Every retail jewelry store buys its diamonds from De Beers.

Actaully it's a cartel / monopoly between De Beers (South Africa, but also with industrial diamond factories around the world) and the Russians who between them produce the majority of the world's diamonds. The west african wars were largely financed by so-called "blood diamonds" (i.e. the money paid for the diamonds went to buying guns).

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
So you're saying that a US court of law did not judge Microsoft both to have a monopoly and to be abusing the monopolistic powers that it had?????

The court only judged that Microsoft harmed consumer interests with its pricing and bundling policies. The remedy was to divide up Micorosoft into three distinct companies. What you are getting confused Bonkey is the definition of monopoly and the economic effects which a company can act through competitive and anti-competitive practices. Here is a short analysis of Microsoft's judgement

By what yardstick do you judge it to be more accurate? I'm not knocking the resource (I haven't had a chance to read it yet), but I'm just curious as to how you are coming to that conclusion? The accounts differ, sure, but what makes your choice of source more accurate as opposed to just alternate?

jc

Personal preference.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
Not sure if you've read it. It specifically refers to Egypt and a violation of it's sovereignty by a country known as Israel. Nothing at all to do with US sovereignty. But according to you that's the single most important priority of a country. It's so important to the US that it vetoed attempts by the UN to get Israel to respect another countries sovereignty.

National sovereignty is not limited to within ones own border. It is defined by a variety of public opinion, political prowess, national law, and economic necessity or conveivence. However, no one method solely defines national sovereignty. Look at the Monroe Doctrine as a prime example. It is also a changing definition based on geopolitical and geoeconomic constraints that directly and indirectly affect a country or group of countries.

News Flash: He dropped them because the WTO ruled that they were illegal...and what single most important priority, according to you, would that be contrary to?

This will surprise you Sovtek, but I do not believe in tariffs at all (not in the best interests of any nation in the long run). In a perfect world, no country would level tariffs, but then again, we do not live in a parfect world. But that is the ever changing definition of national sovereignty.

Probably, but it isn't meant to be nor is a world government. It's an org to arbitrate between countries. If it's a cartel then so is the Supreme Court.
I fact we are bound by the UN Charter as we are signitories to it as well as our Constitution states that we have to honor treaties we sign.

If we are bound as you stated, then it acts like a government. If we are bound, then how does that relate to the Constitution, or does it become irrelevant or subserveant. If it is an organization, then each nation can choose to participate, follow, reject, or not to participate in the organization. So which is it sovtek?

It's good that you realize that and it might help you to talk to other people in other countries about politics should you choose to.

You said that you choose not to because it can get you into trouble. I said my experience has been that it's only in the US where you have to worry about that.

More specivdally, in my line of work, it has basically no business in the conversation unless directly related to the topic or business at hand (that is of course when I do travel). I have also found that traveling for pleasure

Yea our government just gives them billions in subsidies and tax breaks as well as uses MIT to research and develop new technology to give to businesses...for free.
So it's ok to give rich people billions by it's not ok to give poor people a basic living.

So I take it you rich because of the foreign earned income exclusion (remember, I had to use this when I lived overseas).

I'm not saying that the University of Texas isn't a good college. My point was that Bush couldn't get into a state school but he could get into one of the most prestigious colleges in the country who his father happened to be an alumni.
You said:
"Everyone has an equal opportunity to make or brake themselves Vader. And it is not dependent on who your father is, your sir name, your grandmother, your uncle, or even an ancestor."
That little fact suggests your wrong.

Here is a thought for you Sovtek, perhaps he did not want to go to UT? But then again, it is practically impossible to verify whether he applied to UT or not because of disclosure laws and the limitations of record keeping.

That's your choice. It would seem that most people in America don't have that choice. In Germany they don't need a rich uncle to survive.

There is always a choice. The question is whether you recognize the choice or not. However, in most asian countries, families, and I mean the entire family, will take care of the elderly and sick despite the government subsidies and tax breaks, as you call it. But that is their culture and something that I wish in the US would choose more to do.

sceptre

Originally posted by Geromino
National sovereignty is not limited to within ones own border. It is defined by a variety of public opinion, political prowess, national law, and economic necessity or conveivence. However, no one method solely defines national sovereignty. Look at the Monroe Doctrine as a prime example. It is also a changing definition based on geopolitical and geoeconomic constraints that directly and indirectly affect a country or group of countries.

I'd define national sovereignty as the legitimate right of a specific group (who identify themselves as a nation)and/or the leaders of that group to control a specific piece of territory. It ties in fairly nicely with the definition adopted by the Montevideo Convention on sovereignty in 1933, which formally defined what a sovereign state was, in a way with which virtually all legal scholars agree.

I'd be interested to hear how you currently define sovereignty, even keeping in mind that for some reason you have decided it's an item with a liquid definition, presumably depending on a person's politics. My definition, incidentally, doesn't change. It's a definition that takes into account different kinds of government, imposed boundaries, boundary disputes, actual states and states that don't exist even though they probably should. The key words are "legitimate right".

Incidentally I believe you're confusing the original Monroe doctrine (which incidentally was never ratified by congress) with extensions to the policy made much later by Grant (the extension of the original policy into the idea that the western hemisphere was the sole responsibility of the US in place of any European influence (see the Venezuela boundary dispute) and later to just US responsibility and influence in palce of any non-US influence)) and by Roosevelt (the idea that the US should intervene in the affairs of another state within their area of influence in the case of misconduct or disturbance in a Latin American country (cue piddling about in the Caribbean under Taft)) until 1928 when the State Department repudiated the Roosevelt corollary to the doctrine, leading to the other Roosevelt redefining the policy with emphasis on a pan-Americanist multistate co-operative movement (the "good neighbour" policy). (let's just forget about Guatemala and the Dominican Republic)

I'm generally disappointed that many people forget, when bringing up the monroe doctrine, the original intent of the policy (read the last line in the linked speech excerpt - it's my favourite bit). I assume most people forget (or just never knew). I'd be interested in a side-discussion of the specific policy (probably in a new thread - and about the specific policy rather than descending into the rights and wrongs of intervention per se) at any time Geromino - if you've got a semi-clue about it, it might be an interesting discussion as it has long been an interest of mine.

So (back on topic) which particular Monroe doctrine are you talking about then (I've only listed the main four revisions)? None of them really extended sovereignty, even between 1904 and 1928. Not even the imaginery extra sovereignty that must have kept people in foreign affairs wet at night. Back to that "legitimate right" bit again.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
UN resolution 686 and 1441 have no relevance what so ever to national sovereignty, 686 deals with weapon inspectors, 1441 is meaningless. 1441 is too open to interpretation, well that’s not correct. Its very clear but the US misinterpreted it. It asks Saddam to comply or else. The or else was to be decided by the UN. Saddam was complying, the US were unhappy so they said they would decide the what else and this was the beginning of the whole league of nation thing debate in the US.[/B]

When it comes to UN resolutions, I am speaking of national sovereignty. As I stated with Sovtek, national sovereignty includes national interests beyond ones border. National sovereignty changes when the geopolitical and geoeconomic conditions change. It was the best interest for the US to follow those resolutions when most other nations, based on their national sovereignty, did not want to follow those resolutions.

Yes they didn’t work because they were irrelevant. When Saddam realized there was a real threat of war he cooperated. Fully. That’s what Blix said. He also said there was little to find but he would find it this time because of the huge change in attitude. Every country wanted Saddam out. Few wanted America in. That why ppl wouldn’t approve the or else. Some countries believe in democracy and negotiation. The US vetoed the resolution calling for no or else for a while, to give the inspectors time. Remember? It was all over the free media here in Europe.

More precisely, Iraq claimed to give unfettered access, but in reality, did not give such access to the inspectors. There were several UN resolutions that declared Iraq in material breach. Not exactly irrelevant.

Outdoing other countries? The UN wants all its resolutions enforced. When one of the big 5 continuously veto resolutions and defy others then other countries say hey, why should we have to. The UN was opposed to war in 1998. It was opposed to war in 2003 as well. What had changed? Kosovo, the US had proven it could act without the UN and that NATO was a credible military force. Why not use NATO this time. Well after the misinformation, war crimes and dishonorable conduct of the US during that conflict France and Germany decided they didn’t want to work with America again.

Will you condemn all of the big 5 for vetoing UN resolutions or only those countries that do not specifically agree with your political philoshophy?

Ive heard of SALT, START agus le leithéid. Do you remember what we were talking about earlier Re: arrogance

In 1991, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed, in Moscow, by Soviet Pres. Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. Pres. George Bush to reduce strategic offensive arms by approximately 30 percent in three phases over seven years. START is the first treaty to mandate reductions by the superpowers. (The treaty entered into force in 12/94.) For more information, you can look at: http:infomanage.com/nonproliferation/primer/nat.html

The US is part of the nonproliferation treaty, yeah I know but you wouldn’t think it. SDI is specifically prohibited under the nonproliferation treaty.
The US has a huge arsenal of WMDs which it is currently augmenting. That is not speculation or a secret. You discussed the US's development of chemical and biological WMDs in another thread on this forum. Is your memory slipping or is this selective ignorance?
The US sold its secrets to Israel, one of the worst terrorist states in the world.

Actually, SDI was prohibited by the ABM treaty set forth in 1972 (?). Now Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea want to develop an SDI to the threat imposed by North Korea. But that is because of the geopolitical climate has changed with NK getting nuclear capability. It is also why China wants NK to stop having nuclear capability for fear that Taiwan could use this situaion to declare independence.

As with Israel, it was a cooperation between South Africa and Isreal as far as Israel obtaining nuclear capability.

And this has any baring on what I was saying because.....?
I said the UN is the cornerstone of international law and that the US is "undercutting" it.

Again, undercutting by whose standards, Vader?

Very little weight on the US. The UN is a very powerful organization, unfortunately it needs US approval for everything it does.

When any one of the big 5 opposes a UN security council resolution, it is dead.

Because the US wants the WTO to have more power than the WC. What does that show? That the US are all for a global economy where business can exploit workers, undermine national sovereignty, violate environmental laws and still operate freely all over the world. That is sick and disgusting IMO. I don’t care if it would be legal as the law would be distorted and unjust. The US is a bully holding the world to randsom.

The WTO is more equipped to handle economic issues than the world court Vader. However, there are over 2000 multinational corporations with less than half located in the US. The top five mutinationals are US, Japan, UK, Germany, and France. In retrospect Vader, not only the US, but most other nations as well want globalizaton and free trade.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
What you are describing is socialism. There are 3 definitions of socialism. When I say socialism, I mean the form of political and economic society found in Ireland agus like states. In Ireland you are free to be enterprising, but the State wouldn’t let you exploit ppl. The State protects its citizens. It enforces their rights, provide jobs and equal opportunity and looks after the less well off. The ESB is a semi-state body (for the time being). Lets compare it to capitalist(American) energy companies. It has an impeccable ethical business record. It doesn’t have to please shareholders and so keeps honest accounts. There is a shortage of capital for expansion (not a plc) so in order to grow it must become efficient and reliable. It has been given to contract for running Americas largest power grid. Hmmm. Enough said.

Actually Vader, corporations please the shareholders simply because the shareholder is the owner or one of the owners. However, what you more precisely described was Ireland's command economy (a possible definition of socialism). The United States has a market economy (a possible definition of capitalism) where the government does not make the decisions for investment. It could encourage due course, through a variety of fiscal and monetary policies, but does not have any direct impact.

If you could hear that through the ears of somebody who hasn’t been indoctrinated you would either laugh of shudder.
In order to have equal opportunities one must have an equal opportunity for education, equal protection from uncontrollable events such as acts of god and health problems, and one must feel the consequences of bad decisions and unemployment equally. None of those things happen in America. You are not what you make of yourself. In Ireland ppl are equal, in my home town of Portlaoise millionaires live within half a mile of ppl on the minimum wage. Their children go to the same school, if a Shaw(the name of this particular rich family) were to give a job in their store to their children instead of one of their neighbours children they would have to prove that their son/daughter was more qualified than the other applicants. Mr O'Brien got a managerial job ahead of one of the Shaws. That’s equality. That’s making something of yourself. That’s right.

It all depends on how one defines equal opportunity. Pouring more money into a system or forcing everybody to become equal, monetarily speaking, may not be the most equal of definitions. However, as I stated, the US does have the EEOC, labor relations acts, and other measures, both state and federal, in which those who make good decisions are generally rewarded and those who make bad decisions are not.

That is blatant propaganda. Poop ppl are just lazy alcoholics/drug addicts they are (in America) often the victims of a society designed to create a two tier system so as to utilize cheap labour, exploit the ppl and allow a small minority to live like and exercise the power of deities.

No Vader. Alcoholism has devestating effects on family, resources, etc. And more often than not, those personal decisions affect not only the individual, but all others arond them. It also has no bearing on economic analysis with labor, but has a profound impact on heathcare costs.

I didn’t ask any constitutional question. I want to know the advantages of privatizing healthcare and social welfare. I want to know how profit making
organizations can be asked to be benevolent and charitable and still make profits. Only a gov/society can reap the long term benefits of charity (if you're only considering monetary gain). Then you spout on about how the red cross and other charities make up the difference. If they did why is poverty such a huge problem in the USA. The huge problem in the US is its attitude towards poverty, a flawed attitude which you share.

Actually, it is based on the Constitution Vader. There are explicit powers granted by the Constitution under Article 1, section 8, as well as the tenth admendment which seperates the powers from the state and federal government.

Then why is most social welfare provided by states in America provided by Lockheed Martin, a profit making organization and how can a charity with limited resources better meet the needs of the ppl than the richest government in the world? That’s just plain stupidity, greed and cruel indifference.

There is a difference between a company sponsored pension plan and a government one. For example, if I were to work for Lockheed, I would be in the pension plan. But if I leave, that money is mine, not Lockheed's. If I was not fully vested, then I could transfer that money into another retirement account. If I was fully vested, then I would need to wait until minimum retirement age to draw on the retirement plan. I could also have more than one retirement plan when I work for Lokcheed or other companies. Social security is the only government security. Furthermore, there are different retirment plans such as Inidivual Retirement Accounts, Roth Individual Retirement Accounts, Money Market Accounts, and so forth. And more specifically, that money earns interest and can be withdrawn ealier for specified purposes.

No I have never met a fundamentalist Buddhist, I would have thought it a contradiction in terms. Just because you're sure you're right doesn’t mean you cant be tolerant of those that are wrong. Look at us, I'm sure America is flawed and revolting, with exploitation of the ppl and gross inequality but Im not going to build a bomb or go to war to civilize America. Im just going to try to educate you and any body else I can, and if I can do that much maybe you and others can educate more and eventually the ppl of America will seek their rights. Although you're more likely one of the oppressors than the oppressed.

You might want to tell that to the fundamentalist Hindus and Muslims in a place called Kashmir and see what their result would be.

Then you are judging credible sources on their agreement with America and are being biased stubborn arrogant and closed minded. There is no open minded person who would discredit Chomsky so Im guessing you've never truly read his work. Its objective, thorough, detailed, referenced and deals with both cause and effect. Its not one sided and its obvious why he is acclaimed from all corners.

I have read a couple of his works, but I have also found him to be less credible when it comes to politics. He is respected as a linquist, but not as a political philosopher, at least here in the states.

No I took your analogy they way it was meant, you implied America was misunderstood, I say I understand perfectly. Notice the way the man in your analogy doesn’t go round pissing on people or on their houses. Not a very apt analogy.

My anaology was the reference in which you are casually observing and based your conclusion on that casual observation even though numerous other reasons could exist. The point was that a more detailed analysis would needed to be entailed. And if you saw one hundred people doing the same thing, then what would your conclusions be, Vader?

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Actually Vader, corporations please the shareholders simply because the shareholder is the owner or one of the owners. However, what you more precisely described was Ireland's command economy (a possible definition of socialism). The United States has a market economy (a possible definition of capitalism) where the government does not make the decisions for investment. It could encourage due course, through a variety of fiscal and monetary policies, but does not have any direct impact.

Yes a market economy where every major industry's R&D is subsidized by the government. Your using one of them right now. DARPA spends millions developing the internet. Those guys that were paid by us to develop it go out and open companies that charge us for what we've already paid for. Market economy or socialism?
Ireland and the US have basically the same economic model 'cept Ireland also subsidizes those less fortunate as well.

It all depends on how one defines equal opportunity. Pouring more money into a system or forcing everybody to become equal, monetarily speaking, may not be the most equal of definitions. However, as I stated, the US does have the EEOC, labor relations acts, and other measures, both state and federal, in which those who make good decisions are generally rewarded and those who make bad decisions are not.

Yea good decisions like Enron, Mutual funds, Worldcom, Savings and loans a few years ago, Authur Anderson...etc???

No Vader. Alcoholism has devestating effects on family, resources, etc. And more often than not, those personal decisions affect not only the individual, but all others arond them. It also has no bearing on economic analysis with labor, but has a profound impact on heathcare costs.

You'll notice that the poor are more succeptable to vices like alcohol and other drugs. When people don't have jobs they are more likely to turn to vices. So that spoils your assertion that it doesn't have anything to do with economic analysis.
Furthermore "we" jail people instead of treating them so that has another impact on the economy. But instead of trying to get them on track and taxing them, we put them in a system where they are more likely to be a burden on the system for possibly the rest of their life.

Actually, it is based on the Constitution Vader. There are explicit powers granted by the Constitution under Article 1, section 8, as well as the tenth admendment which seperates the powers from the state and federal government.

WHAT?

There is a difference between a company sponsored pension plan and a government one. For example, if I were to work for Lockheed, I would be in the pension plan. But if I leave, that money is mine, not Lockheed's. If I was not fully vested, then I could transfer that money into another retirement account. If I was fully vested, then I would need to wait until minimum retirement age to draw on the retirement plan. I could also have more than one retirement plan when I work for Lokcheed or other companies. Social security is the only government security. Furthermore, there are different retirment plans such as Inidivual Retirement Accounts, Roth Individual Retirement Accounts, Money Market Accounts, and so forth. And more specifically, that money earns interest and can be withdrawn ealier for specified purposes.

Vader was refering to the privatisation of welfare of which Lockheed is now the provider of.

You might want to tell that to the fundamentalist Hindus and Muslims in a place called Kashmir and see what their result would be.

Not to mention the nationalist Pakistanis and Indians...wait, where are the fundamentalist Buddhists again?

I have read a couple of his works, but I have also found him to be less credible when it comes to politics. He is respected as a linquist, but not as a political philosopher, at least here in the states.

Actually he does but the corporate media heads that he often criticizes aren't about to tell you that.
It's another thread, but I'd love to hear instances of debunked Chomsky.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
Yes a market economy where every major industry's R&D is subsidized by the government. Your using one of them right now. DARPA spends millions developing the internet. Those guys that were paid by us to develop it go out and open companies that charge us for what we've already paid for. Market economy or socialism?
Ireland and the US have basically the same economic model 'cept Ireland also subsidizes those less fortunate as well.

Actually Sovtek, you are subsidized through the foreign earned income exclusion. Does this mean that you are rich now? However, in reality, Ireland's economy as well as Europe in general have more of a ocmmand economy, that is, the government makes the principle decisions on investment. In the US, a market economy is where the consumer make the principle decisions for investment, expenditure, and savings.

Yea good decisions like Enron, Mutual funds, Worldcom, Savings and loans a few years ago, Authur Anderson...etc???

Although Enron is now defunct, Worldcom is about to come out of bankruptcy, Savings and Loans have been replaced by savings banks and credit unions as a whole, mutual funds are now back up on the positive side, and the other big accounting firms are are/should be learning the lesson from Aurthur Anderson.

You'll notice that the poor are more succeptable to vices like alcohol and other drugs. When people don't have jobs they are more likely to turn to vices. So that spoils your assertion that it doesn't have anything to do with economic analysis.
Furthermore "we" jail people instead of treating them so that has another impact on the economy. But instead of trying to get them on track and taxing them, we put them in a system where they are more likely to be a burden on the system for possibly the rest of their life.

Not exactly, Sovtek. It is more based on family history than whether you are rich or poor, but more importantly, it is based on personal choice. If you want to blame everybody but oneself for your situation, then no one can help you. Furthermore, studies have concluded that drug use is just as rampant while working than while you are unemployed.

WHAT?

You might want to read the Constitution and its articles before replying any further.

Vader was refering to the privatisation of welfare of which Lockheed is now the provider of.

A company pension is welfare, Sovtek? That has to be the most rediculous business notion I have ever heard. On the contrary, a company pension is not welfare for simply it is based on your time in service with that specific company. If you are not fully vested in the pension plan sovtek, which is normally five years, you have the option to withdraw the funds and transfer them to another retirement account. Retirement accounts can include savings acounts, IRA, qualified retirement plans, mutual funds, and other investment tools. If you are fully vested in the pension, then normally you will have to wait until the company's mandated minimum retirement age based your job description. It is quite simply, not welfare, but a retirement plan, or investment, given your earnings at that company, time in service, and life expectancy.

Not to mention the nationalist Pakistanis and Indians...wait, where are the fundamentalist Buddhists again?

I was referring to what Vader said about being tolerant. Apparently, he only thinks Christians is the only religion that is not tolerant. However, given the fact of fundamentalist Hindu and Muslims in Kashmir who do not want to recognize the other religion, then I wonder who is tolerant.

Actually he does but the corporate media heads that he often criticizes aren't about to tell you that.
It's another thread, but I'd love to hear instances of debunked Chomsky.

Considering the fact that he is most often quoted by The Mirror, a European version of the National Enquirer, I will respond to Noam Chomsky's works on an individual basis.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Actually Sovtek, you are subsidized through the foreign earned income exclusion. Does this mean that you are rich now? However, in reality, Ireland's economy as well as Europe in general have more of a ocmmand economy, that is, the government makes the principle decisions on investment. In the US, a market economy is where the consumer make the principle decisions for investment, expenditure, and savings.

I'm not subsidized by anyone.
Just like America, private companies make the decision on investment. Also like America Europe governments subsidize certain industries.
I want to know what consumer decided to institute DARPA who is responsible for developing technology for several sectors of industry?

Although Enron is now defunct, Worldcom is about to come out of bankruptcy, Savings and Loans have been replaced by savings banks and credit unions as a whole, mutual funds are now back up on the positive side, and the other big accounting firms are are/should be learning the lesson from Aurthur Anderson.

And how many of the CEO's are out on the street or in jail, meanwhile who paid for their bad decisions. As well the SEC wasn't really strengthened to prevent the crimes I listed above.

Not exactly, Sovtek. It is more based on family history than whether you are rich or poor, but more importantly, it is based on personal choice. If you want to blame everybody but oneself for your situation, then no one can help you. Furthermore, studies have concluded that drug use is just as rampant while working than while you are unemployed.

Yes working people use drugs, but the poor are the worst effected. GWB being a prime example. I remember having to have a drug test for just about every job I've ever applied for (in the US). I wonder would have the same standards for the child president allowed him to have gotten where he is.
Nevermind all his failed business decisions that he was rewarded for.
Studies have also shown that drug use is more prevelant amongst people out of work as well as the poor and homeless.

You might want to read the Constitution and its articles before replying any further.

You might want to clear up the cryptic connection you made to the constitution and the subject that was being discussed.

A company pension is welfare, Sovtek? That has to be the most rediculous business notion I have ever heard. On the contrary, a company pension is not welfare for simply it is based on your time in service with that specific company. If you are not fully vested in the pension plan sovtek, which is normally five years, you have the option to withdraw the funds and transfer them to another retirement account. Retirement accounts can include savings acounts, IRA, qualified retirement plans, mutual funds, and other investment tools. If you are fully vested in the pension, then normally you will have to wait until the company's mandated minimum retirement age based your job description. It is quite simply, not welfare, but a retirement plan, or investment, given your earnings at that company, time in service, and life expectancy.

Besides all the irrelevant data provided, this is what Vader was refering to.

I was referring to what Vader said about being tolerant. Apparently, he only thinks Christians is the only religion that is not tolerant. However, given the fact of fundamentalist Hindu and Muslims in Kashmir who do not want to recognize the other religion, then I wonder who is tolerant.

Vader didn't mention Hinu's or Muslims and I don't see how you came to the conclusion that he said that only Christians are intolerant?

Considering the fact that he is most often quoted by The Mirror, a European version of the National Enquirer, I will respond to Noam Chomsky's works on an individual basis.

Actually he's quoted by various sources and in various media throughout the Western world.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
I'm not subsidized by anyone.
Just like America, private companies make the decision on investment. Also like America Europe governments subsidize certain industries.
I want to know what consumer decided to institute DARPA who is responsible for developing technology for several sectors of industry?

But it depends on how one defines "subsidizing" now doesn't it Sovtek. If you want to be very broad and use tax breaks and credits as subsidizing (part of Nader's definition), then you must also include the tax breaks and credits for individuals as well. Corporate welfare is, in my definition, direct subsidies. There is no uniform definition of what defines "corporate welfare" and almost every definition is a slippery slope based on one's political agenda. And until a uniform definition of "welfare" that can be applied to both to businesses and individuals, true reform will never take place.

And how many of the CEO's are out on the street or in jail, meanwhile who paid for their bad decisions. As well the SEC wasn't really strengthened to prevent the crimes I listed above.

Most of getting ready for trial in the next couple of months. The only high profile CEO currently on trial is the former CEO of Tyco but I do not believe a verdict is in yet. Furthermore, the SEC is not a traditional regulatory agency. There needs to be a delicate balance between regulation and enforcement powers and individual freedom. You CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Additionally, there is no amount of regulation that can "prevent crime." Medicare, probably the most regulated program in the federal government, still has fraud ocurring at $100 billion per year.

Yes working people use drugs, but the poor are the worst effected. GWB being a prime example. I remember having to have a drug test for just about every job I've ever applied for (in the US). I wonder would have the same standards for the child president allowed him to have gotten where he is.
Nevermind all his failed business decisions that he was rewarded for.
Studies have also shown that drug use is more prevelant amongst people out of work as well as the poor and homeless.

It is still a choice, Sovtek. As far as GWB is concerned, he affliction was alcohol, not illicit drugs. But he has also turned around on his alcoholism. He does not drink alcohol anymore, but acknowledges that he had a problem and corrected it long before he came into political sprectrum. But then again, you have former President Clinton stating, "I smoked, but never inhaled" definition of marijuana. However, the simple fact remains that certain conditions can lead a person to turn to drugs or alcohol. One primary factor is family history (prevelent in alcoholism). Illicit drug use comes from a different persona. Most has to do with the social rebellion theory, to be nonconformist, but it is also very addictive much like most pain medicines like morphine, codine, and others.

You might want to clear up the cryptic connection you made to the constitution and the subject that was being discussed.

All federal laws are based on the Constitution. The application of the Constitution is what seperates political parties in the United States. Some have a very broad view and some have a very limited view. The specific powers authorizing Congress of which bills it can pass and which it cannot are located in Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress) of the Constitution. They include:

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Besides all the irrelevant data provided, this is what Vader was refering to.

Wefare reform: It is better to teach a man to fish than to give him fish Sovtek. It still does not explain the how in the hell the author came up with the conclusion that they did.