hahaha douche. (chavez)

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

ok, i have had about enough of this stupidty from all you pinko whinos.

from wiki.---

Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire.

tell where or when, since america won its independence and africa was granted its own governance, has any western nation acquired territory, or controlled a government. i know the china/taiwan situation, as well as northern ireland, but that is more based in a region wanting to secede form another, as opposed to a takeover.

so, now, in a civil manner, explain how the west is acquiring, or managing governments, as opposed to what we really are doing, in allowing our businesses uncontrolled operations (unless there are direct crimes). im seriously wondering how many ppl can be so dumb as to think " american imperialism" is operating, since the only time we have actually taken control of something was the period after ww2 in japan, which subsequently, lead to a hand over of operations back to the japanese after the reconstruction of thier country. and BTW, america's evil hand did pretty fucking good there i think, considering japan has one of the worlds leading economies, hasnt violated any international treaties outside of bootlegging, which isnt done by anyone as a government directive, and finally, japan hasnt aggressed on shit and operated with everyone on a peaceful, stable, and prosperous guideline.

[Shpira]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

I don't care....capitalism - communism...in my opinion the end of history is near either way. And I don't mean in a biblical psychotic sense I mean in political and global terms. What will happen when all the lands have been exploited and there are no third world countries to exploit...what will happen when globalization has taken its maximum toll on the whole world and there is a uniform standard for everything...the end of history...unless there is a new world war ?

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

answer the question. you formed an opinion, that can easily be challenged, and im challenging without insult or smartass remarks, so, please go ahead.

the end of history isnt near, if anything, down the line after the middle east cuts the shit(violence), we will eventually see what the UN was designed for, in a global political system, with a strong hybrid of capitalistic economies, and socialistic civilian serivces that enable Yao's idea of care and rights for all with my idea of "work harder, benifit better".

now you may not love the fact that american business has prospered and grown into other regions, but what the hell do think oil is? the middle eastern oil industry is the single strongest capitalist industry on the planet in that they dicate thier own prices, via shady politics and coalition, and hold it over everyone's heads. so the tables have turned, you might opt to realize that the things that ppl rip america for are accomplished by other regions in a far more drastic manner

so please, i ask, back up your opinion, as i see it right now, it is comparable to me saying my opinion is that the earth is covered in hawaiin punch asopposed to water and land.

[Shpira]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

What do you want me to back it up with...quotes from books?
The current system is based on "exploiting" (depends how you look at it as it does help them in the long run) countries who are economically weaker e.g. china had/has sweatshops and its economy gradually got stronger...eventualy the price of labor in countries like china (well maybe not china since they are "communist") or more in democratic countries like India at which point the major manufacturing industries will as they have done before move on to the next in line which offers a more competitive cost of labor...I ask what will happen when all of these "third world" countries have developed where is the cheap labor going to come from and whats going to happen then...
The "work harder benefit better" theory would be more likely in an ideal world the reality will be that the workers will then have a greater bargaining power through Unions and what not...that causes strikes and stalemate...democracy would not survive.

I don't care that AMERICAN business has prospered! Really I have nothing against America as a single country in a kind of nation hatred that you seem to think I do!
I am simply trying to point out flaws after all America was built on the idea that if something doesn't work it should be fixed...right?
To me this is a cause of concern as I do not see a viable solution which would help the survival of todays society...

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

...eventualy the price of labor in countries like china (well maybe not china since they are "communist") or more in democratic countries like India at which point the major manufacturing industries will as they have done before move on to the next in line which offers a more competitive cost of labor...I ask what will happen when all of these "third world" countries have developed where is the cheap labor going to come from and whats going to happen then...
The "work harder benefit better" theory would be more likely in an ideal world the reality will be that the workers will then have a greater bargaining power through Unions and what not...that causes strikes and stalemate...democracy would not survive.

ok, i re-read it. so i think i got where you are coming from, but i could be wrong.

upon the implementation of sweat shop style labor and the associated costs, i will ask the question, how else is an industry given the incentive to operate in said country, and we will use india here for example. if not given the cheap labor, a few things happen. for one, their wont be any money coming into a country, as industry will avoid it. (see : africa). but upon receiving the "benefit", the seed is planted, and at least some source of employment and income is beginning to be generated, and now, there is income to be spent. with income comes spending and growth......

fsat forward a few decades. so growth has happened, government organized better to protect wealth, and the budding industry moved on to say africa, where thier labor costs are rising. assume the point that africa is the very very very last option and spot where labor was avilable and they are now operating repsectbale local economies. the global feild is leveled, everyone is making money. this is where the socialistic ideals can move in in peicemeal. labor markets are separated and high skilled jobs and low skilled jobs have now found a common ground as to value in repsect to each other, and the lefty ideas can move in.

[Shpira]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

ok...fair enough but if thats achieved through capitalism and there is no ideological indoctrination what keeps the workforce "low skilled" labor from grinding economies to a stand still and blackmailing governments...since money is the ultimate goal!

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

but thats just it, the "low skilled" labor, throughout history, pushes themselves to the point where they destroy themselves via greed, until they lose jobs and have to take the work to survive. and im not talking about a 15K a year janitorial position, but another repsectable job, and if you doubt this, check out what is happening to the american auto manufacturing unions, the prior events of the english mining industry, etc. it can, has and will balance itself in the face of "take what you can get, or nothing"


what i was asking from you, was not an ideal, but rather a theory based on real behaviour and actual factual representation. as i tend to rip[ yao for , old theories, especially those of ppl who never saw the 19-21st centuries, simply because of the change in technology, trade, ideas of human beleifs, etc. while aristotle has points, they can hardly be considered reality or even a majority of a realistic system. indeed, parts of them, incorporated into the whole of it can be benificial, but cannot be deemed "solutions", nor should they be talked about as the only way, simply because they arent. no one can prove they are, in fact, most people with an education and experience in things like finance, commerce, history, can easily disprove them.

so pull up some facts, based within the last 200 years, regarding labor and relations, and back up your theory. hey, if anything, you will only educate me, and thats more than enough.

[Localizer]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

ok, i have had about enough of this stupidty from all you pinko whinos.

from wiki.---


tell where or when, since america won its independence and africa was granted its own governance, has any western nation acquired territory, or controlled a government. i know the china/taiwan situation, as well as northern ireland, but that is more based in a region wanting to secede form another, as opposed to a takeover.

so, now, in a civil manner, explain how the west is acquiring, or managing governments, as opposed to what we really are doing, in allowing our businesses uncontrolled operations (unless there are direct crimes). im seriously wondering how many ppl can be so dumb as to think " american imperialism" is operating, since the only time we have actually taken control of something was the period after ww2 in japan, which subsequently, lead to a hand over of operations back to the japanese after the reconstruction of thier country. and BTW, america's evil hand did pretty fucking good there i think, considering japan has one of the worlds leading economies, hasnt violated any international treaties outside of bootlegging, which isnt done by anyone as a government directive, and finally, japan hasnt aggressed on shit and operated with everyone on a peaceful, stable, and prosperous guideline.

LOL, you're setting yourself up for something reallll bad here.

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

no im not, im setting myself up to learn something, as so far in my life, i learned things that lead me to incorporate a system of knowledge from different areas including history, finance, taxation, and law, as well as business management, into a beleif that a modified system based on capitalism is indeed the best, history and current events are proving my ideas correct.

[Shpira]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

I will do, you caught at an bad time now as I'm packing right now...going home for a week...once I get back (if you are still interested) I will come back with some books and quotes...as I have read about this...good to see your still open for new opinions and that your mind isn't completely set.

[Localizer]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

no im not, im setting myself up to learn something, as so far in my life, i learned things that lead me to incorporate a system of knowledge from different areas including history, finance, taxation, and law, as well as business management, into a beleif that a modified system based on capitalism is indeed the best, history and current events are proving my ideas correct.

ok then, how about this. Philipines, Nicaragua, Panama, Hawaii, Peurto Rico, ports of China under US rule, Japan pre WW2, Koreas....just a little food for thought....how do you think Asians migrated to America? crap I forgot Chile. According to your definition, all these nations meet those requirements.

[88Mariner]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

^ are you providing those as counter-examples? or are you bolstering his arguments? careful now...

can anyone defend the idea that 'government knows best' when in comes to markets?

[thesightless]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

ok then, how about this. Philipines, Nicaragua, Panama, Hawaii, Peurto Rico, ports of China under US rule, Japan pre WW2, Koreas....just a little food for thought....how do you think Asians migrated to America? crap I forgot Chile. According to your definition, all these nations meet those requirements.

not sure what you are asking here, but if it is falling under the idea of american imperialism then...

well first off you have to split those examples into the sub classes of involvement.

in hawaii, you have a US state, purchased the state, after an uprising of the existing citizens there, and thier involvemnt in terms of miltary intervention was asked for by the royal family of hawaii with the aim of keeping public order during the obvious upcoming revolution.

puerto rico, this had a lot to do with the spanish american war, as opposed to a takeover or pressure. after spain invaded the american border islands (american in continental sense, not national) the US fought them off, and elected to extend the rights of being a commonwealth, whereas we help help and demand nothing in terms of funding.

wait a sec, i wont go on, if im answering the wrong question.

[Localizer]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

^ are you providing those as counter-examples? or are you bolstering his arguments? careful now...

can anyone defend the idea that 'government knows best' when in comes to markets?

counter-examples.

[Localizer]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

not sure what you are asking here, but if it is falling under the idea of american imperialism then...

well first off you have to split those examples into the sub classes of involvement.

in hawaii, you have a US state, purchased the state, after an uprising of the existing citizens there, and thier involvemnt in terms of miltary intervention was asked for by the royal family of hawaii with the aim of keeping public order during the obvious upcoming revolution.

puerto rico, this had a lot to do with the spanish american war, as opposed to a takeover or pressure. after spain invaded the american border islands (american in continental sense, not national) the US fought them off, and elected to extend the rights of being a commonwealth, whereas we help help and demand nothing in terms of funding.

wait a sec, i wont go on, if im answering the wrong question.

"imperialism is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, *or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy.* The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire."

Hawaii was sovereign till it was settled on, as were many other sovereign territories. The US coerced China, and even fought them, for the opium trade. They directly controlled the markets in China which also provided invitations to the Belgians, French, and British. - All signs of imperialism. And I mean come on, the vast expansion of the wild west and the 'new frontier' is in and of itself imperialism.