Anti-Neocons

Wrong. Please don't turn this into semantics. Free market doesn't mean people can break the law. The existence of any laws means there is at least some kind of rules affecting the anarchistic market that you are calling free market.

I agree with the point you are making about bribing, but that isn't bribing. Those are all legal means to take advantage of the system. The fix is to remove those means form the system. Yes, there are problems with a "second job" when there is a conflict of interest to the public.

What the fuck are we talking about here? Do you want to come up with a better system or just bullshit about the existing one?

_________________
Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?

"The state breaks everything and then blames freedom.
The state destroys everything and then blames those who interact voluntarily for that destruction."
-- Stefan Molyneux

With a free market you do not get "free trade." Things like NAFTA are not free markets. US farms and ranches are subsidized by the government. That makes them more socialist and that is why they create over bearing monopolies that exploit the third world.


lol oh yes communist China has so much better labor rights. The best labor rights in the world are Japan and Europe and they have free markets, more free than the US anyway. You can poo poo them all ya want but compared to Latin America, The soviet block, etc the Western worker has it very good.

The third world worker doesn't have it good, not because of free markets but because of government. Their governments take loans form world banking institutions which drive up inflation to such a degree that their currency is basically worthless. Businesses can not start on their own because of over regulation. Many businesses in most African countries for example will just be bulldozed down without a permit and the permits are impossible to obtain. This ensures a government monopoly.



Wrong. And under communism/socialism you have a state run media like ORT in Former Communist Russia run by one man. What makes media conglomerates in the US isn't the market, it's the government. The ultimate owners of the press are the pentagon and big pharma both of which get money from the government.

You want pure government media, go visit North Korea.

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception (Magic Bunnies)
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

If you knew anything about "Fair trade" You would know that the ideals of fair trade are entirely against the idea of flooding third world markets with American produce.
Fair trade aims to fix this http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade And this isn't even a socialist idea, just something seperate that I happen to support.


China is a REPUBLIC. NOT socialist. Socialism is a democracy, that is the main difference between socialism and communism. I would NEVER say China has better labor rights. The only reason Japan and Europe have better labor rights are because they export their low skill jobs to third world countries and exploit them. We are very fortunate to be in the west, but it's only because of the greed of capitalism that we have it so good. By exploiting third world countries we get oil cheap, we get clothes cheap, we get electronics cheap, all through exploitation, and that is why we have it so good.



I never claimed that third world workers had it good. But it IS because of free markets. The free market allows the exploitation in sweatshops. Fair trade makes sure that farmers get a little extra money to ensure sustainability for example. Sure government can also be a problem, if the government is corrupt enough, and without a democracy it's hard to fix. I would never be for something where one person has too much power. These African countries you speak of are in no way socialist.



Not pure government media, media run by the people. That's what socialism is. These countries you're naming off are communist. The only reason either the media or pharma get money from the government is because they are paid up with the right people, which should be ILLEGAL, but because of the free market, these things are allowed.



I would definitely agree. I'm not exactly sure what this would constitute, but defnitely something more ethical than today. No sweatshops, fair trade being standard, make it illegal for corporations to be in bed with government in any way. Give more power to unions, etc.



Yes, let's call it socialist capitalism

_________________
Obama - Proving that a black president can be JUST as bad as a white one
Debt is the key to the shackles of Slavery, and the bankers are the keymasters

You seem to be under the impression (without explanation) that a free market is what causes exploitation of labor and that Japan and Europe are only wealthy because they use the third world.

Japan and Europe are wealthy because they are the most advanced in science. Japan makes products IN JAPAN made by high paid JAPANESE workers and sells them all over the world. That is why they have wealth. They are not building hybrid cars and cell phones in Micronesia. When a company exploits people there is no reason the savings have to be passed on to the consumer. Things are not cheap in the west, they actually cost more here than anywhere in the world. Things are cheaper int he third world. What is different is the money supply. Even if food from the store for a family of 4 is less than a dollar it doesn't matter when you have no money at all. People in the third world are living inside mut huts without electricity. They live under dictatorships or puppet governments to the imperialist US. That's not the market's fault it's the fault of US foreign policy.

You have to ask your self first for the third world to be used as cheap labor WHY is the labor cheap and WHY can't they build their own products?

It is NOT because of free markets. It's the opposite. Need I explain again because I already did it once and you just ignored it. The Third world is in the conditions that it is in not because of Nike and Cocacola but because of international banks, the CIA, and their own governments. Their currencies are debased intentionally by their own governments for the sake of personal wealth. Socialism in a Democracy doesn't work, ask Iceland about it. You can't just have the government pay for everything by redistributing wealth from the middle class to the poor. Or even from rich to poor.
THE IDEA of some benevolent fair government that will fairly redistribute wealth for the sake of the people and not itself, is as stupid as saying why don't we just have a really good King who care about the people and won't be corrupt?

China is Communist republic and it is democratic too dumb ass, go look it up they vote for their leaders too same as the US, the difference is in the US their is a mixed system of socialism and capitalism and in China is straight up communist.

The oil companies you hate are not working in the free market either. They are tied to government. They get no bid contracts for their work and exuberant prices, NOT form the market and not open to competition but from the government. It's corporate welfare. That is what most socialism REALLY is, corporate welfare. And they don't pass that wealth on to western consumers. They hord it, these people are billionaires. All we get is rising gas prices. And in more socialist Europe and Jpaan the prices are even higher, because fewer of their companies are getting the government contracts.

A problem with capitalism is when the Government assist certain companies to make monopolies like they did early on with rail road and now with oil and weapons. That's not free market, that's mercantilism.

Go look this word up Mercantilism. That is what you really hate. You want government involved but just as a nanny state and not as corporate welfare. The best way to fight rising cost of living and prices is with a free market. You can't even begin socialism until your population already has some wealth to tax, which it will not have without free markets.

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception (Magic Bunnies)
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

It's not "The cause" but it highly encourages it. Instead of paying more for a product that was made humanely, companies are encouraged to pay the lowest wages possible to maximize the profit margin (This is also because people are too stupid and careless to feel bad for people overseas. I mean people don't have to buy these products, but they still do).

I don't think that is the only reason they are wealthy, but it definitely is a part of it. Japan is even part of the IMF. Granted not to the extreme the U.S. is, but they just loaned the IMF 100 billion.



Well every country even the U.S. has high paid AMERICAN workers that sell products all over the world. But you make it sound like Japan is a huge exporter of amazingly complex products, when in fact they don't export much more than they import according to http://www.stat.go.jp/english/19.htm

The U.S. foreign policy is like this BECAUSE of the system we currently have. Companies are rewarded the more they outsource jobs. They are rewarded for paying workers the lowest amount possible. I think we're just arguing symantics here, because to me it's the system that causes the corruption (Or at least encourages it), to you it's just the government, no matter what system we have in place.



I did not mean to ignore anything you said. I know why the third world is what it is. It's through predatory lending through the IMF. I'm sure you already know the dirty details of everything, but in the book "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins he describes how the loans would be used to benefit American COMPANIES. It's very profitable to build useless infrastructure that only the rich can use. Or sometimes we get them to sell us oil on the cheap. It only benefits the government indirectly (That is to say that the government benefits on the tax profits from the eventual sale of gasoline, and our continued dominance in the world, but otherwise, I fail to see why the government would really give 2 shits about building infrastructure abroad, and getting cheap oil.)

I realise that it's a pipe dream and socialism will never work, and the reason is because people are too greedy. It's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in people. I am definitely for an in between. Basically taking power away from corporations. I'm not saying let's go to Bill Gates house and take him for everything he's got, I'm saying put the people in control of our businesses, our banks, our retail outlets, our oil companies. If we weren't so focused on profits, we could focus on our environmental impact, and our human rights abuses instead of the almighty dollar.



You can call it whatever you want "Dumb-ass" but they aren't a democracy. They're a democracy like we're peacekeepers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. In the U.S. it's a pathetic excuse for socialism. It's bizarro world socialism if you will. Socialism isn't about taking money from the people and giving it to corporations, that's socialism for the rich. If a company makes a profit, they keep it, but if they make a loss, I have to help pay? Not the idea of socialism AT ALL. China on the other hand is probably just as capitalist as we are (Maybe not just as much, but pretty close.). If they were straight up communist they wouldn't have upper and lower classes (I despise communism because it focuses too much power in too few hands byt the way). Wealth is not distributed evenly at ALL in China.



Corporate welfare is corporate welfare, NOT socialism. We can argue symantics all day, but I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. This is corporations taking control of our government. Say for example, Dick Cheney being vice president of our country and also a rather large share holder and ex-ceo of halliburton, when he makes a decision that benefits the oil industry, I consider that to be the evils of business and corporations, and I believe you would call this governments bad. I highly disagree.



Yes mercantilism is definitely bad. It's a very selfish method of government.
The free market has only led us to lower prices in unethical ways. That is to say, that the free market has led to the rampant importation of goods from China, so now with all these cheap goods, just to compete in the market you have to start getting goods from China too to sell. Nobody wants to pay 50$ for a shirt made in proper working conditions when you can get the same for 15$ made by someone getting paid 15 cents an hour. That is all the free market leads to. Unethical business practices. Does it drive prices down? Sure, but at what cost?
I don't think you understand the ideal definition of socialism. It's constantly thrown around towards obama, who is the farthest thing from one. Try reading something like this http://www.sp-usa.org/ Just the front paragraph, and you'll see what it's really about. The only reason I'm not a member is because they're pro-choice.

_________________
Obama - Proving that a black president can be JUST as bad as a white one
Debt is the key to the shackles of Slavery, and the bankers are the keymasters

I wasn't trying to start a discussion about it, just mentioning that it's the one thing on the party platform I don't agree with. Just wanted to make it clear that I don't endorse them, but giving it as a good resource as to what socialism is really about.

_________________
Obama - Proving that a black president can be JUST as bad as a white one
Debt is the key to the shackles of Slavery, and the bankers are the keymasters

11/30/2010 the Republicans announced that they will not attempt to repeal the part of the bill that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to a person with a pre-existing condition, and they will also not be repealing the part that explicitly requires a person to be covered under their parents insurance until they are 26 years of age (read: they don't even have the option of seeking insurance on their own if they wanted). So now, basically, if you have a pre-existing condition, you can demand that any provider insures you.

_________________
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -Einstein

From my understanding, they aren't forcing parents to have their kids who are over 18 and under 26 on their plan. They are giving the option or choice or opportunity for a kid who is under the age of 26 and who is still in graduate school or just out of school without a job to be on their parents plan. I know I didn't have health insurance for two years after I graduated because it was hard finding a job.