"God told me to do it"

RedPlanet

While not defending the idiot Bush, I suspect he really did say that in all earnestness to the Palestinians. I believe he probably felt he was speaking at their level. Which demonstrates just what type of idiot Bush really is.

wiseones2cents

bonkey wrote:

So its cooky to believe Bush is being guided by God, but perfectly reasonable to suggest America is condemned by same???

Well that makes sense.

The proof is in History. Look back at all the Imperial nations that over stepped their boundries and see what happened. America barely has enough troops to fight Iraq and they are planning to Attack Iran and Syria. If North Korea gets into to it, its going to get ugly. Not to mention the rest of the Middle east, Russia, China.......

wiseones2cents

RedPlanet wrote:

While not defending the idiot Bush, I suspect he really did say that in all earnestness to the Palestinians. I believe he probably felt he was speaking at their level. Which demonstrates just what type of idiot Bush really is.

P.S. There is no doubt bush is an idiot. Only in America can a man be a complete failure at all he does and be elected President. Thanks to media and b.s. propaganda.WHich are in the hands of the Elites that are really running the show. not that dunce bush. he couldn't run a lemonade stand.

Gurgle

wiseones2cents wrote:

Only in America can a man be a complete failure at all he does and be elected President.

(Twice)
And how can you call him a failure - he got elected & re-elected didn't he ?
And he has successfully taken over 2 middle eastern countries. (so far)

Not quite the save league, but don't we have a Bertie ?
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=189&docID=-1

His bio wrote:

Bertie Ahern, was re-elected Taoiseach on 6 June 2002, following a general election which saw his party Fianna Fáil returned to power in coalition with the Progressive Democrats. It was the first time an outgoing government was re-elected since1969.

Luckily he's a much less ambitious idiot than Bush, but still.

wiseones2cents

Gurgle wrote:

(Twice)
And how can you call him a failure - he got elected & re-elected didn't he ?
And he has successfully taken over 2 middle eastern countries. (so far)

He got elected twice because of the people running the show and the Methodist,Evangelist,Protestant right. SAY NO TO ABORTION AND GAYS But YES to War and Murder and starving and suffering........

Not too mention the newly introduced electronic voting machines. There was so much irregularities and frauds in those elections it wasnt funny. But the elites have the justice system in their pockets also.So that was quickly swept under the rug.

Most of the Americans are clueless and wouldn't know their enemy if he was standing right in front of them(Which he is).

The dumification of America has been in the worls for years through media spin,TV and music. As you can see, its working.

Successfully taken over two ME countries? I do not know how you judge successful, but in my eyes, he hasnt successfully did anything. The war is far from over and even if they were to gain the advantage. It would be only temporary.

Not to mention he mortaged his country to do it. If he doesn't secure Iraqi oil, America is finished. Their plans for expansion will be cut short.

bus77

I was just thinking. What would be the best way to tackle militant muslims whos main propaganda piece is "They are Godless...."?

hmm..

wiseones2cents

bus77 wrote:

I was just thinking. What would be the best way to tackle militant muslims whos main propaganda piece is "They are Godless...."?

hmm..

???I'd like you to elaborate.

lazydaisy

Wicknight wrote:

Because people in America accept that the president is one person God should be talking to.

I

No, it's because people in America arent even phased anymore by the nutty things he comes out with. He probably got confused between God and Rumsfeld.

Yes he's a failure but got elected twice and has "taken over" two ME countries. Also he's really stupid but also masterminded Sept 11. American is a godless nation full of fundamentalist christians. Uh huh.

Imperial nations: UK, France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Japan, what about them? They are all still standing. I dont know what you are trying to say? I guess its because Im from dumbed down america and am clueless? Please spell it out for this dummy. By the way are you from British or French Canada wiseone2cents?

wiseones2cents

lazydaisy wrote:

No, it's because people in America arent even phased anymore by the nutty things he comes out with. He probably got confused between God and Rumsfeld.

Yes he's a failure but got elected twice and has "taken over" two ME countries. Also he's really stupid but also masterminded Sept 11. American is a godless nation full of fundamentalist christians. Uh huh.

Imperial nations: UK, France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Japan, what about them? They are all still standing. I dont know what you are trying to say? I guess its because Im from dumbed down america and am clueless? Please spell it out for this dummy. By the way are you from British or French Canada wiseone2cents?

When you understand that those Christian fundamentalist leaders have the people's money heavily invested in the American economy for their OWN selfish greed(rather than the poor). And America's economy was going south? You will understand why those fakes endorsed the war.

I'm From Toronto, Ontario so I dont know if you consider that British Canada or French.

P.S, Those are the same Imperialistic countries that I have down except I have Germany/Austria in the place of Holland. But Even though they all still have their hands in the cookie jar, there is only one leading the Imperialist thrust today and that is America. Thia Iraq war is About Expansion. It needs Expantion in order for it to survive. Capitalism has proven to be a Failure.

lazydaisy

Im really trying to understand you. Your theorising is very vague. You talk in huge generalities and arent specific.

When you say Christian Fundamentalists, I presume you mean Bush & Rice/Cheney? When you refer to the people's money I think you mean revenue earned by tax dollars that is being spent to secure contracts with American companies in the rebuilding of Iraq, and its the Bush/Cheney/Rice/[Michael Moore too] investments in that stock which is what motivated them to go to war with Iraq because after 911 the economy & stock market was so destroyed that they needed to create a military economy similar to the one which was created by the cold war for their own personal financial portfolios?

Can you provide me with an example of what you consider to be a successfull economy?

bus77

wiseones2cents wrote:

???I'd like you to elaborate.

Well, what I'm saying is. Bush going with the "God speaks to me" angle might be good tactics. Think about those middle eastern fellas sitting around having little chats about things. Some will be going with the ''they want to destroy islam, get the pagan's, ect'' other more left-wing types will be going with the ''they want the whole middle east, domination ect'' Bush coming out with this is sort of like a big sticky finger in the middle of those trains of argument...

I think...

wiseones2cents

lazydaisy wrote:

Im really trying to understand you. Your theorising is very vague. You talk in huge generalities and arent specific.

When you say Christian Fundamentalists, I presume you mean Bush & Rice/Cheney? When you refer to the people's money I think you mean revenue earned by tax dollars that is being spent to secure contracts with American companies in the rebuilding of Iraq, and its the Bush/Cheney/Rice/[Michael Moore too] investments in that stock which is what motivated them to go to war with Iraq because after 911 the economy & stock market was so destroyed that they needed to create a military economy similar to the one which was created by the cold war for their own personal financial portfolios?

Can you provide me with an example of what you consider to be a successfull economy?

Obviously those though I am also reffering to the Christians Ministers that are endorsing this war.

An example of a sucessful economy? New Zealand maybe 30-40 years ago, before the Elites started to Invest there.

wiseones2cents

bus77 wrote:

Well, what I'm saying is. Bush going with the "God speaks to me" angle might be good tactics. Think about those middle eastern fellas sitting around having little chats about things. Some will be going with the ''they want to destroy islam, get the pagan's, ect'' other more left-wing types will be going with the ''they want the whole middle east, domination ect'' Bush coming out with this is sort of like a big sticky finger in the middle of those trains of argument...

I think...

Well if you believe Blasphemy is a good tactic, you have a right to your
opinion. But it is not mine.

They think that way thanks to gearge bush's big mouth and talk of a crusade.

War was not the Answer but since the CIA tried to assassinate Saddam a few times and couldn't get to him, they had no other choice but to invade with falsified information to regain control of the oil fields.

P.S. Speaking of sticky. The Americans got caught in thier own web and will pay the price.

The Corinthian

wiseones2cents wrote:

An example of a sucessful economy? New Zealand maybe 30-40 years ago, before the Elites started to Invest there.

What on earth are you talking about? New Zealand's economy was a mess 30-40 years ago - the standard of living was unsustainable without massive overseas borrowing.

Or is living indefinitely on credit a viable economic policy in your eyes?

wiseones2cents

The Corinthian wrote:

What on earth are you talking about? New Zealand's economy was a mess 30-40 years ago - the standard of living was unsustainable without massive overseas borrowing.

Or is living indefinitely on credit a viable economic policy in your eyes?

Not according to all the research I have done via encyclopedia's.

Thier economy was mostly agricultural, Sheep(mostly),wool products, Cattle(dairy products), wheat potatoes, fruits,vegetables,ect...

Everything a human being needs to survive.

No one was filthy rich but poverty was non existent.
They say New Zeland had one of the most highest standards of living.

So why the heck would they need massive overseas borrowing????
Makes absolutely no sense.Unless the New Zelanders were getting milked(robbed).

The Corinthian

wiseones2cents wrote:

Not according to all the research I have done via encyclopedia's.

Care to share some of that research?

So why the heck would they need massive overseas borrowing????
Makes absolutely no sense.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/nzefo/2004/economy.asp

Unless the New Zelanders were getting milked(robbed).

Robbed? You mean someone else was benefiting from higher trade prices, as NZ had prior to 1970, which largely helped to pay for her higher standard of living.

You can’t benefit from trade then cry foul when the deals are no longer as sweet.

wiseones2cents

The Corinthian wrote:

Care to share some of that research?

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/nzefo/2004/economy.asp

Robbed? You mean someone else was benefiting from higher trade prices, as NZ had prior to 1970, which largely helped to pay for her higher standard of living.

You can’t benefit from trade then cry foul when the deals are no longer as sweet.

I scanned my Encyclopedia but it wont let me paste. This is what it says.

WAY OF LIFE: New Zealanders enjoy one of the Highest standards of living in the world. There are no people of great wealth, but poverty is practically unknown. The majority of families live in one story wooden homes. Most families have an Automobile, and many have modern appliances. Because the country is a major supplier of sheep and dairy products, meat and butter form a larger share of the diet than is common in other countires.

THEREFORE sounds to me like they were leading good simple lives. Now we know that after the world war most countries were affected but in the 1979
they were doing exceptionally well. Which is when the Encyclopedia was published. The New Book Of Knowledge.

Who benefits more from Trade with foreign countries?The Exporters or the
Citizens, that have to compete with foreign countries, bringing up costs of thier Produce?You'd think the Industralization of New Zealand would bring down the costs but it has had the opposite effect.

Since free trade, Canada has witnessed a tripling of the cost of Living. We now pay more for energy than the Americans that are taking it from us.We give it to them and they sell it back to us at a higher cost. Thanks to the Privatization of our Utilities and resources.

As soon as an Economy starts to depend on another country, the economy is on shaky ground.

Now please dont waste my time and stay on the subject.

bush claims GOD guides him, but it is only thier greed that is leading the way.

The Corinthian

wiseones2cents wrote:

I scanned my Encyclopedia but it wont let me paste. This is what it says.

What Encyclopaedia? Publisher, date, edition? Or should I take your word for it?

THEREFORE sounds to me like they were leading good simple lives. Now we know that after the world war most countries were affected but in the 1979
they were doing exceptionally well. Which is when the Encyclopedia was published. The New Book Of Knowledge.

What New Book of Knowledge? There’s no such thing. Indeed there’s no single Encyclopaedia for that matter.

Who benefits more from Trade with foreign countries?The Exporters or the
Citizens, that have to compete with foreign countries, bringing up costs of thier Produce?You'd think the Industralization of New Zealand would bring down the costs but it has had the opposite effect.

Supposition. You’ve presented no facts here. These are all opinions backed up by nothing.

Since free trade, Canada has witnessed a tripling of the cost of Living. We now pay more for energy than the Americans that are taking it from us.We give it to them and they sell it back to us at a higher cost. Thanks to the Privatization of our Utilities and resources.

Correlation does not imply causation. For example, there is a direct correlation between cars driving more slowly on roads and an increase in traffic accidents. Should that mean that we should outlaw cars driving too slowly? No, because both of those correlating factors are in reality cause by ice on roads.

In the same fashion you may (I say may, because you’ve only presented your opinion, you’ve not actually given any evidence to back any up your claims) have displayed at best a correlation, but that’s all. Saying that free trade increased energy, for example, is a gigantic assumption on your part - you’ve typically ignored everything else that happened in the World that may have effected Canada’s economy during the same period.

Now please dont waste my time and stay on the subject.

Waste your time? You’re coming out with the most amazing unsubstantiated fantasy and you accuse me of wasting your time? Very droll.

When you can come back and back up what you’re saying with something more than what you read off a coffee table edition, feel free.

wiseones2cents

The Corinthian wrote:

What Encyclopaedia? Publisher, date, edition? Or should I take your word for it?

Already Answered The New Book Of Knowledge 1979

What New Book of Knowledge? There’s no such thing. Indeed there’s no single Encyclopaedia for that matter.

There's no such thing?Since It is right in front of me, I'd say so far your arguments are weak.

Supposition. You’ve presented no facts here. These are all opinions backed up by nothing.

I wasn't aware that Encyclopedias presented suppositions.:D

In the same fashion you may (I say may, because you’ve only presented your opinion, you’ve not actually given any evidence to back any up your claims) have displayed at best a correlation, but that’s all. Saying that free trade increased energy, for example, is a gigantic assumption on your part - you’ve typically ignored everything else that happened in the World that may have effected Canada’s economy during the same period.

A giant assumption?I guess the bills that have been coming in that have tripled in the last few years are only a figment of my imagination?:D
I think 1) You profit from International thievery 2) You really dont know what you are talking about 3) You are changing the subject because you do not want to know the true fact that Christian ministers in America that support the war are all a bunch of fakes.(I noticed your Corinthian title)

Waste your time? You’re coming out with the most amazing unsubstantiated fantasy and you accuse me of wasting your time? Very droll.

When you can come back and back up what you’re saying with something more than what you read off a coffee table edition, feel free.

Why is it a coffee table edition? Because it doesnt agree with you?

Heres wikipedia. If anything it seems that since it went global it has put itself into debt, Inflation has been on the rise and Unemployment has become a problem. Not to mention now your entire economy is dependant on trade which makes the Economy highly volotile.

New Zealand has a thriving, modern, developed economy. The country has a high standard of living, ranking 19th on the 2005 Human Development Index and 15th of The Economist's 2005 world-wide quality-of-life index. Since 1984 successive governments have engaged in major macroeconomic restructuring, transforming New Zealand from a highly protectionist and regulated economy to a liberalised free-trade economy. During the late 1980s, the New Zealand Government sold a number of major trading enterprises, including its telecommunications company, railway network, a number of radio stations and two financial institutions in a series of asset sales. Although the New Zealand Government continues to own a number of significant businesses, collectively known as State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), they are operated through arms-length shareholding arrangements as stand-alone businesses that are required to operate profitably, just like any privately owned enterprise.

Unfortunately, due in part to the sudden transition to a market economy, an economic bubble developed in the New Zealand stock market starting in 1984. This burst in October 1987 and the total value of the market halved within a year (it has still to recover this lost value). The effect of this bubble was a period of poor economic growth which lasted until the mid 90s. It also led the government to begin a programme of massive immigration to boost GDP. However, since 1999 New Zealand has enjoyed a period of relatively strong and sustained growth, and contained inflationary pressures.

The current New Zealand government's economic objectives are centred around moving from being ranked among the lower end of the OECD countries to regaining a higher placing again, pursuing free-trade agreements, "closing the gaps" between ethnic groups, and building a "knowledge economy." In 2004 it began discussing free trade with China, one of the first countries to do so.

New Zealand is heavily dependent on trade—particularly in agricultural products—to drive growth, and it has been affected by global economic slowdowns and slumps in commodity prices. Since agricultural exports are highly sensitive to currency values and a large percentage of consumer goods are imported, any changes in the value of the New Zealand dollar has a strong impact on the economy. Its primary export industries are agriculture, horticulture, fishing, forestry and information technology. There are also substantial tourism and export education industries. The film and wine industries are considered to be up-and-coming.

The Corinthian

wiseones2cents wrote:

Already Answered The New Book Of Knowledge 1979

I see; this is the name of the encyclopaedia then? All one volume of I I’d imagine. And an odd 27 years out for date, too.

I wasn't aware that Encyclopedias presented suppositions.:D

No you’re presenting suppositions based upon your interpretation of a dated and dubious document.

A giant assumption?I guess the bills that have been coming in that have tripled in the last few years are only a figment of my imagination?:D

Again this is an observation you’ve put forward, without even attempting to create a link denoting causation. As I’ve already pointed out; correlation does not imply causation - demonstrating the former does not demonstrate the latter.

I think 1) You profit from International thievery 2) You really dont know what you are talking about 3) You are changing the subject because you do not want to know the true fact that Christian ministers in America that support the war are all a bunch of fakes.(I noticed your Corinthian title)

Now who’s attempting to change the subject?

1) Most people do, directly or indirectly you’ll find.
2) I’m almost certainly better qualified to discuss economics than you
3) No, I only took an interest in what you said on the basis that you were coming out with some outlandish economic theories, backed up by nothing more than your opinion and interpretation of a coffee table edition you euphemistically call an encyclopaedia.

As for my nick, you should read more. There’s more than one meaning for the term Corinthian.

Why is it a coffee table edition? Because it doesnt agree with you?

No because it’s a children’s book:

“The New Book of Knowledge (NBK) has been in print in the United States since 1912. Widely renowned as the first modern encyclopedia for children, NBK has long been the leading source of accurate, accessible, and fun-to-read information for use in homes and libraries.”

http://go.grolier.com/go-ol/static/features/nbkfeatrs.htm

Heres wikipedia. If anything it seems that since it went global it has put itself into debt, Inflation has been on the rise and Unemployment has become a problem.

Where do you discount what I pointed out about the ‘self-sufficient economy’ being ultimately unsustainable because it was based upon massive overseas borrowing?

No one denies that free trade comes with it’s own problems, but to suggest that running on credit is the basis of a viable economy is ridiculous.

Not to mention now your entire economy is dependant on trade which makes the Economy highly volotile.

Pretty much all economies are dependant on trade, like it or not – complete self-sufficiency was an idiotic doctrine that went out with Enver Hoxha’s Albania. Indeed, it’s actually impossible to do so if you lack certain resources, notably fossil fuel.

edanto

Or is living indefinitely on credit a viable economic policy in your eyes?

I think wiseones2cents might have a point about the growing problem with debt in the US. But, hey, everybody look over here - a war!!! With pictures, live on TV!! Yes, not just any war...against a defined state or people... no, a war on a CONCEPT!!

Genius - who would have thunk it could be done. Maybe the voices in his head weren't God. God might have pointed out that violence begets violence. It might have been the other fella, with the pointy toes.

You know the one, pointy toes, horns....lots of stocks in 'defense' companies(what a misnomer!).

The Corinthian

edanto wrote:

I think wiseones2cents might have a point about the growing problem with debt in the US.

He didn't make that point and judging by his view of the former economy of New Zealand, wiseones2cents has no issues with living off credit.

wiseones2cents

The Corinthian wrote:

I see; this is the name of the encyclopaedia then? All one volume of I I’d imagine. And an odd 27 years out for date, too.

You Imagined incorrectly.;)

No you’re presenting suppositions based upon your interpretation of a dated and dubious document.

Dubious document?An Encyclopedia?:rolleyes:

Again this is an observation you’ve put forward, without even attempting to create a link denoting causation. As I’ve already pointed out; correlation does not imply causation - demonstrating the former does not demonstrate the latter.

Are you sure your not a politician or lawyer?You seem to be full of empty chatter.

Now who’s attempting to change the subject?

1) Most people do, directly or indirectly you’ll find.

Most people benefit directly or indirectly? NOw I know your dreaming. Since the 10-25% are getting richer and 75% are getting poorer. I'd say ytou are mistaken in your conclusion. Capitalism can not survive without incurring debt.

America's entire economy was bought on Debt. That it wil have to pay one day. if it can.....

2) I’m almost certainly better qualified to discuss economics than you

If you are a capitalist supporter, I highley doubt it. The Notion that capitalism is a success, was spread by the rich that benefit from it. Capitalism is a failure. Its an OK system but opens up too many doors to coruption, which has become mighty obvious.

3) No, I only took an interest in what you said on the basis that you were coming out with some outlandish economic theories, backed up by nothing more than your opinion and interpretation of a coffee table edition you euphemistically call an encyclopaedia.

HMMMMM. Lets see. They have Sheep, Cattle, Dairy Products, Fruits, Vegetables, Fish, wool, Lumber, Wheat,Water, Energy(Hydro),ect.. What else would you need to live a content life?How did they incur such a large debt?

Could it be that thanks to the Bretton Woods System, their money is worth nothing and the cost of their Imports have tripled? And that could be what is Incurring the debts? They Have to sell alot of sheep to buy a car with the current system.

Their dollar was made low to increase exports, Though The Imperialist used their high dollars to buy their resources for dirt cheap leaving them with nothing of their own.

No because it’s a children’s book:

“The New Book of Knowledge (NBK) has been in print in the United States since 1912. Widely renowned as the first modern encyclopedia for children, NBK has long been the leading source of accurate, accessible, and fun-to-read information for use in homes and libraries.”

The fact that it was made for Children makes the Information inacurate?

No one denies that free trade comes with it’s own problems, but to suggest that running on credit is the basis of a viable economy is ridiculous.

Take a look around you. All the Capitalist systems are in debt, Even with the resources of other countries that they milk for dirt cheap.

Pretty much all economies are dependant on trade, like it or not – complete self-sufficiency was an idiotic doctrine that went out with Enver Hoxha’s Albania. Indeed, it’s actually impossible to do so if you lack certain resources, notably fossil fuel.

Canada and Russia can live without trade. I am for trade but only trade what you do not have. Hitler through self-sufficiency almost took over the entire world. There are other forms of energy.

wiseones2cents

edanto wrote:

I think wiseones2cents might have a point about the growing problem with debt in the US. But, hey, everybody look over here - a war!!! With pictures, live on TV!! Yes, not just any war...against a defined state or people... no, a war on a CONCEPT!!

Genius - who would have thunk it could be done. Maybe the voices in his head weren't God. God might have pointed out that violence begets violence. It might have been the other fella, with the pointy toes.

You know the one, pointy toes, horns....lots of stocks in 'defense' companies(what a misnomer!).

Not only That. Most Of America's economy was built on war and defence, Here is a speech From Eisenhower.

“We annually spend on military security more than the net
income of all United State corporations. This conjunction of
an immense military establishment and a large arms industry
is new in the American experience. The total
influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in
every city, every state house, every office of the Federal
government. . . . Yet we must not fail to comprehend its
grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are
all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”--
Farewell address, 1/17/61

This is an economy that has been sustained by debt, wars, trillions of dollars of dirty money they launder from around the world, Religious money(origionally meant for the poor), and resources they have squandered.

They are reaching the end of their rope and they know it. If they do not secure Iraqi oil to help pay off their debt, they are finished.

Freelancer

wiseones2cents wrote:

If you are a capitalist supporter, I highley doubt it. The Notion that capitalism is a success, was spread by the rich that benefit from it. Capitalism is a failure. Its an OK system but opens up too many doors to coruption, which has become mighty obvious.

And then the obvious rebuttal is how successful the communist states were at avoiding corruption. Well they might not be a successful example of a the ideal of a communist state, the ideals of a capitalists state (invariably services and goods will be given at the highest quality and best price, due to market forces) aren't protrayed in any capitalist society.

Put simply can you give an successful example of an alternative system?

HMMMMM. Lets see. They have Sheep, Cattle, Dairy Products, Fruits, Vegetables, Fish, wool, Lumber, Wheat,Water, Energy(Hydro),ect.. What else would you need to live a content life?How did they incur such a large debt?

Hmmm what have you got there. Animal? Yup. Vegetable? Yup. Mineral? Oh look. Coming from an Island state and that while they and us are plenty of resources we and New Zealand have the suggest you can live without y'know metal, or petrol is daft.

The Corinthian

wiseones2cents wrote:

Dubious document?An Encyclopedia?:rolleyes:

A children’s book.

Are you sure your not a politician or lawyer?You seem to be full of empty chatter.

Neither. And simply because you cannot understand a point or are unable to respond to it does not make it empty chatter.

Most people benefit directly or indirectly? NOw I know your dreaming. Since the 10-25% are getting richer and 75% are getting poorer. I'd say ytou are mistaken in your conclusion.

Most people you get on an Internet bulletin board benefit directly or indirectly

Capitalism can not survive without incurring debt.

Where on Earth did I say it would? I have only ever entered this discussion to point out that your assertions about New Zealand’s economy were rubbish.

If you are a capitalist supporter, I highley doubt it. The Notion that capitalism is a success, was spread by the rich that benefit from it. Capitalism is a failure. Its an OK system but opens up too many doors to coruption, which has become mighty obvious.

You base how qualified someone is in economics on whether they support Capitalism or not? Did you read that in the Barney the Dinosaur Big Book of Econometrics?

What qualifications have you in economics?

HMMMMM. Lets see. They have Sheep, Cattle, Dairy Products, Fruits, Vegetables, Fish, wool, Lumber, Wheat,Water, Energy(Hydro),ect.. What else would you need to live a content life?How did they incur such a large debt?

Petrochemicals. Electronics. Textiles. Luxury goods. Or are you suggesting that the population of New Zealand should forego such goods and live like the Amish?

Could it be that thanks to the Bretton Woods System, their money is worth nothing and the cost of their Imports have tripled? And that could be what is Incurring the debts? They Have to sell alot of sheep to buy a car with the current system.

Actually, if you look at the actual figures you’ll find that New Zealand’s balance of trade improved overall after it opened up its economy. The only exception to this was during the oil crisis, which would have hit it regardless.

So frankly your assertions are actually completely false.

The fact that it was made for Children makes the Information inacurate?

Actually, quite often yes.

Take a look around you. All the Capitalist systems are in debt, Even with the resources of other countries that they milk for dirt cheap.

How is this related to my pointing out that your assertions about New Zealand’s economy were rubbish?

Canada and Russia can live without trade. I am for trade but only trade what you do not have.

And where does that leave New Zealand that has no petrol? Or Ireland that has no minerals either? What do you think countries trade for?

Hitler through self-sufficiency almost took over the entire world.

He wasn’t self-sufficient - why do you think he wanted to invade the oil-rich Russian caucuses? And he didn’t “almost take over the World” - not even close.

There are other forms of energy.

Yes, but are they even close to being able to replace petrochemicals?

wiseones2cents

wiseones2cents wrote:

Are you sure your not a politician or lawyer?You seem to be full of empty chatter.

Please read the charter regarding personal insults.
Your posting rights will be withdrawn from here if I see any more of that.

wiseones2cents

Freelancer wrote:

And then the obvious rebuttal is how successful the communist states were at avoiding corruption. Well they might not be a successful example of a the ideal of a communist state, the ideals of a capitalists state (invariably services and goods will be given at the highest quality and best price, due to market forces) aren't protrayed in any capitalist society.

There is no doubt that Communism was corrupted. It suppressed Religion, And had a tight grip on an unreligious military & police. Those were its 2 biggest mistakes. Which opened up the doors to Dictatorships.

Capitalism allows Criminals to invest into the Economy, eventually taking it over. Criminals make minimum(and this is the lower level ones) 1,000 a week.
The bigger ones make Millions a week. Then they Invest it into the Capitalist system(After money is laundered).

Put simply can you give a successful example of an alternative system?

One word. Socialism, with a strong religious based society.

Capitalists go to wars to keep their wealth. That is why Socialists went Communist. Communism is forced Socialism, to compete agaainst capitalists. But the Communists could not compete with the Capitalists(better bank Credit). The Capitalists would tempt key people away from Communist countries with larger money the Communist country could not afford.

Therefore one of the reasons socialism failed was because of the greed of Capitalism.

Hmmm what have you got there. Animal? Yup. Vegetable? Yup. Mineral? Oh look. Coming from an Island state and that while they and us are plenty of resources we and New Zealand have the suggest you can live without y'know metal, or petrol is daft.

Like I said. They should only trade what they do not have. How did making their dollar low(Bretton Woods System) help thier economy?

Oh and New Zealand lived without y'know metal and petrol for how many centuries?

wiseones2cents

Editted by error

The Corinthian

wiseones2cents wrote:

Capitalism allows Criminals to invest into the Economy, eventually taking it over. Criminals make minimum(and this is the lower level ones) 1,000 a week.
The bigger ones make Millions a week. Then they Invest it into the Capitalist system(After money is laundered).

And where are you getting this from this time? The Big Bird Book of Financial Mismanagement? Where are you pulling these ‘facts’ - or are you, as I suspect, simply making them up as you go along?

I’ve offered sources, but to date all you’ve offered is what you say is written in a children’s book, which you appear to be using as your sole source.

One word. Socialism, with a strong religious based society.

I see. You mean a theocracy.

Capitalists go to wars to keep their wealth. That is why Socialists went Communist. Communism is forced Socialism, to compete agaainst capitalists. But the Communists could not compete with the Capitalists(better bank Credit). The Capitalists would tempt key people away from Communist countries with larger money the Communist country could not afford.

Therefore one of the reasons socialism failed was because of the greed of Capitalism.

No, what you just described is the greed of people - they went to the system that offered more.

Like I said. They should only trade what they do not have. How did making their dollar low(Bretton Woods System) help thier economy?

Then why did their balance of trade improve after they opened up their economy?

Oh and New Zealand lived without y'know metal and petrol for how many centuries?

Let’s all go back to pre-industrial tribal communities then. Wait... let’s not.

And that’s really where your entire economic philosophy seems to fall apart, because it presupposes that people would be happy to sacrifice their modern standard of living for some form of pre-industrial agrarian utopia. They don’t, that’s the reality.

Of course this does not mean that Capitalism would magically provide everything they seek, but it does offer a better deal, even if it is only superficial. All you’re suggesting is a theoretical distopia based upon little more than your own ill-informed opinion.

Thats funny. I am not benefitting from Capitalism.When Canada was Socialist,one person could raise a family comfortably. Now(with capitalism) 2 people working are struggling to pay the bills. I hear Britain has the same problem. People working 2-3 jobs.

You benefit from international trade from the goods and services that you purchase that you would not have without that trade. You benefit from it by selling back other goods and services. The same goes for expertise – or are you suggesting you’ve never benefited from anything that was developed or invented outside your own country?

Oh wait, you’re using the internet, and for that matter, you’re posting to an Irish bulletin board.

And I am pointing out that If it's economy is hurting, it is because of The Imperialist Capitalists system that is milking it.

But you’ve failed to demonstrate how, either it was a viable or even self-sufficient economy prior to it being opened up, or how it is Capitalism that has allegedly hurt it.

Yes, That about sums it up. Capitalist supporters are usually people that benefit directly from it. Capitalism is an obvious failure. So what does that say about the economist that supports it?People Like Capitalism because it caters to the greedy. I am a religious person and even the Bible speaks against capitalism.

So you base how qualified someone is in economics on:

1. Whether they agree with you.
2. God told you so.

Given the title of this thread, I find the latter as ironic as it is disturbing.

My Qualifications are such. I lived in A Socialist society that was taken over by a Capitalist entity and the effects are obvious. Socialism was a far better system.

In other words you have no qualifications at all in the economic sciences. Have you at least studied basic economics? Read a grown-up book perhaps?

So how did the Capitalist help them by making their dollar lower and theirs higher?The Bible also warns against doing that.Now they have to sell 3X's as much to get what they got before. So Who has benefitted more? The Exporters OWNERS and the Imperialist Importers and Investors.

The bible is not an economic textbook. Can you cite any reliable source for what you’re saying?

Its GDP improved. Thats about it. Not its Unemployment.And not its Economic Stability. It is being sustained on Credit.

You’re not actually bothering to read what I’m writing are you? New Zealand moved to a market economy precisely because its protectionist model was being sustained on credit.

I have witnessed capitalism ruin my country right in front of my eyes. Capitalism causes competition, conflicts, confrontation and wars.

Of course, you seem to prefer religion as a guiding force, and it’s never started a war, has it?

Like I said. Countries should trade only for what they do not have. EXAMPLE:If you have wood, why bring it in Cheaper from another country and take away an Industry(JOBS) from your own?

I agree, but if they don’t then you have to ask why they don’t and adapt accordingly, not put you head in the sand and pretend nothings going on. That’s how humanity has managed to progress throughout history.

Not even close? If he would have left Russia alone, He would have still been
ruling Europe and eventually expanded. He still would have had middle east oil.

He never had Middle East oil. Also I notice you’ve backtracked on your claim that he almost took over the World.