3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Car: 97 540i6 ACS
You can believe in whatever you want. Don't give me any of that red scare crap, as if it is acceptable to talk about fascism (farthest right). Communism is very different from socialism.
You really think you can control hedge funds with assets in excess of 500+ billion dollars each?
Socialism is when the government oversee's the major corporations and makes sure they are operating within accepted standards and they can make money and have free enterprise. In Sweden this is done with workers directly negotiating through government with corporations, sort of a union with government power. In this sense they own more or less some factors of production.
Communism is abolishment of private property and ownership and the means of production and living belong to the community. (Private property and ownership as the means of production, not private possession). “each give according to their abilities, and receive according to their needs”, how evil! Yes quote the failed applications in the name of communism, so the word is butchered, but the ideology has never been truly realized or attempted. Cuba comes closest to attempting to create an engendered culture hopefully capable of the realization.
Who says nationalize means government controls everything? I believe in the socialistic economy and not so much the Marxist. Oh did I not mention I am against the corporations who play the money game. The system in which wealth is extracted from productive industries and is concentrated. That these institutions become so large, because of deregulation(look at the citigroup merger), that when they fail the public is holding the bag? Thus the unregulated derivative market the hedge fund is based on can implode if i had it my way, society does not need it….in fact, if aware of it, would hate it.
Do you even know why the United States was so successful post WW2? Read Memo PPS23.
I was expecting something a lot more contrary to my arguments. Yet this is only the Grand Area Doctrine essentially. They are powerful because of the ITO (future WTO), exploitation of Africa and I quote
“The African Continent is relatively little exposed to communist pressures: and most of it is not today a subject of great power rivalries. It lies easily accessible to the maritime nations of Western Europe, and politically they control or influence most of it. Its resources are still relatively undeveloped. It could absorb great numbers of people and a great deal of Europe's surplus technical and administrative energy. Finally, it would lend to the idea of Western European union that tangible objective for which everyone has been rather unsuccessfully groping in recent months.”
Advocates the reinforcement of the 50% owned by the 6% through
"In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction”.
Pretty standard US imperialism….oh I noticed this too in the context from maintaining a strategic ally to exert power over the middle east.
"If we do not effect a fairly radical reversal of the trend of our policy to date, we will end up either in the position of being ourselves militarily responsible for the protection of the Jewish population in Palestine against the declared hostility of the Arab world"
This is my favourite quote from that document
“initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part."
In other words, the UN has its uses because of its public popularity but hinders our imperialistic plans for the Grand Area Doctrine when the UN is contrary to it. And if people realize UN ideals then advocating of submission to supra-national organizations of the UN such as the Kyoto Accord will be bad for us. That sort of theme.
Your idea's of what are misconceptions, would imply a closed economy.
They are not, I agree whole heatedly on paper everything perfect
competition brings. On paper. But that’s where it’ll stay until our human nature becomes whole heatedly altruistic. Where everyone can apply ethics such as corporate compromise.
Currently there is a divide between equality and freedom. The in ability to have both. Our freedom (liberal sense) comes from the privatization of differences. Thus we have the public realm and private realm where our ethics come from. The corporation is the public realm made up of private individuals, thus the basis that they should be given the rights of a “person” .
We can restrict our tradition sense of freedom, remove the right of a corporation to be considered a human being, and be subject to control/regulations/inspections/etc etc. This violates liberal freedoms though. Is it possible if corporations like Enron were even more selfish without the Narcissism that they realized that they need their employees, their customers, their stakeholders….no man is an island. So capitalism can be the path to equality, relative, not pure equality as Marx would have. Yes it is possible, I just do not trust corporations to develop selfishness without the narcism so so so commonly associated. Again the overwhelming atrocities done by corporations has created the precedent where that trust has been lost and where my main philosophy is socialism. This however would be extremely hard to come about in America, where governmental control has also created the precedent of being bad/corrupt/useless etc…
Show that the proportion of variance indicates that the model you are using is good. I hope you know not doing so means virtually nothing because statistics can very easily be manipulated to infer whatever you want.
If there is anything of the above mentioned that you need sourced, no problem. Oh and as you can see someone with a social science background can easily argue the economy your “logical” way.
Going back to our most fundamental and beloved GDP (c+i+g+x-m). Per capita supported by a GINI index distribution, will immediately allow you to see that competition is working.
Sure does work……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..wha t examples does your textbook use to prove it works? I am really interested in knowing that, because in the world that champagne glass chart I cited to you would SCREAM otherwise. Has standards of living increased globally over the latter part of the century. Yes. Has is done to the extent the models we studied suggest they should of, a resounding NO. Analogy: was there scientific progress during the dark ages, yes, would there have been more if not for the dark ages, RESOUNDING yes.
Just watched the video, and holy correlation and statistical transformation (especially transformation of the response variable, which in turn changes the distrobution of the variation of the error). I would venture to even say the data in his sets would show fairly low coefficients of determination. Perfect execution of how data can be manipulated to fool people.
If anyone cares enough to get that mans data sets I will personally do the calculations and show raw untransformed data.
First off, watch it again, note the sources. Secondly, note where he is presenting. It is TED, this is like where Darwin would go if he made his initial presentation of his theory of evolution. This is academia center, something where manipulation is pathetic to suggest. His papers published on this correlation have been examined and no fallacies found. Thirdly, transformation of the response variable (or the (x)) and its correlation to the distribution of variance is correct. But you forget that the number of factors are so numerous as mentioned in the video that constant trend in multiple independent variables suggests quintessentially that there is no manipulation. His data sets, again as he said, came directly from sources such as the World Bank and other UN organizations, which probably would be the most fair out there? Disagree?
Now to bring this back to the OP. Protestors deserve respect in what they are protesting for. The above, well essay lolz, is focused some of the main issues OWS protestors have on their agenda. Thus I am trying to legitimize a protest reported by media corporations, which operate in the context of the base, propaganda model, reasons of study, power politics paradigm. To back up these models I cite precedents in other words, history. The overwhelming crap that corporate libertarianism, through just US foreign policy has caused would be equal to the number of deaths occurred during WW2. Africa, South America, South East Asia and now the Middle East are all based on corporate libertarian policies. This is the quintessential position I feel anyone who has learned world history, history of business ethics, western ethics and religion would come to the same conclusion.
Now I have said too much already, probably no one reading this but comments such as “The overwhelming crap that corporate libertarianism, through just US foreign policy has caused would be equal to the number of deaths occurred during WW2” is something that would produce a even larger essay than this and still scratch the precedents that support this. So ask this is you must and other questions but dam I feel I got trolled.