russia hates arabs, so i dont see why they would help them..i think its bs

Its like poland helping germany

DsXz wrote: russia hates arabs, so i dont see why they would help them..i think its bs Its like poland helping germany

Huh?

The old USSR had their hands deep in the Middle East, just like the US.  Why should the US be the only country allowed to meddle in Arab politics?

.Ryan, I'm surprised that someone with your apparent socialist leanings hasn't seen the obvious cause of this.

Russia is hurting economically, so they'll screw anyone over for money. That's the bane of capitalism. They had a lot of nice under the table deals with Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power, and even now would have a lot to lose if we sanctioned Iran, which is why any kind of censure of Iran is tied up right now. They don't want us using any kind of language, such as labeling their nuclear ambitions as a threat to world peace, that could lead to sanctions or eventually war. Russia does a lot of business with Iran and that would hurt them.

Putin is turning out to be just as much of a scumbag as we were afraid of when he took power with his crackdown on free press. But do we really want a hostile relationship with Russia again?

The US, and especially the rest of the world, wants to put he cold war far behind us. Even a pretty clear cut case like with Iran right now ends up coming to only talk of punishment, since nobody really wants to lose money or piss anyone off. Nobody wants to aknowledge that somebody else's country has it wrong. People don't want to make enemies, and when somebody ups the stakes a bit(usually the US)they see that party as the real danger. Europe got kind of sick of being stuck between two superpowers for 45 years who were going to crush them to get at each other if war ever broke out.

In this day and age with a global economy and everything, it makes sence to ignor the problems of your trading partners(Nobody seems to talk about china's horrible human rights record anymore) and hope that eventually they'll come around. If you don't trade with them, someone else will.

Monk wrote: Russian people = good guys Russian government = douche bags

Russia< The rest of Eastern Europe

Clark Kent wrote: DsXz wrote: russia hates arabs, so i dont see why they would help them..i think its bs Its like poland helping germany Huh? The old USSR had their hands deep in the Middle East, just like the US.  Why should the US be the only country allowed to meddle in Arab politics?

Once again, the mighty Clark Kent sights, fires, and destroys the misconceptions of the enemy combatant.

Don't always agree with Clark, but the man gets his facts straight!

Bravo, mon ami!

Really, The USSR still gets a free swing. We helped get them out of Afganistan back in the day.

.Ryan wrote: I mean, if it's executed properly, socialism is a far better solution than a system that seems to be inherantly evil. lol, that may be a little extreme but consider this: The goal of a corporation is to make as much profit as possible. The best way to make profit is to do things such as buy off politicians and cut corners at consumer expense. This may be seen as corporate greedy but given the very purpose of corporations it is inherant in them and in any system made up of them, ie. Capitalism. SO, if Corporate Greed is inhereit to Capitalism, and Corporate Greed is bad, does that mean that Capitalism is bad?

First, you have to define "good" - capitalism and socialism (and all points in between) lead to different places.  Whether one place is "better" than another is a matter of personal preference, perhaps.  Is wonderful medical benefits for 90% of society better or worse than crappy medical benefits for 100% pf society?

And, of course, we are talking about nuances.  The US is a pretty capitalist place, but has tons of socialist features.  China is pretty socialist, but has tons of capitalist features.  In many ways, China is much MORE capitalist than the US.

That said, you are listening to Nader too much and bootstrapping yourself.  It is the function of a corporation to make money, yes.  But by what theory does cutting corners at the expense of consumers lead to increased profit?  That's not a very good business model.  Invariably, the companies that do the best (make the most money) are the ones that consistently provide value to customers.  Microsoft and Wal-Mart, "evil" as they may be, provide value to their customers, and lots of it.  That's the central feature of capitalism - that competition FORCES companies to pay more attention to the needs and wants of their customers, whereas in a socialist context the companies can be more complacent.

Corporate greed is inherent to capitalism, yes.  But corporate greed is GOOD.  It is the driving force behind our entire society.  Virtually every economic and technological advance in recent history is due, in whole or in part, to greed.

That's not to say that all socialist applications are bad.  Capitalism, like evolution (same thing, really), moves slowly.  The marketplace will eventually require companies to be more environmentally conscious - it has been happening already for decades.  But it is a very slow movement - by the time the marketplace creates meaningful change, the Earth will be a lifeless lump.  So socialist environmental regulations make sense.  Same thing goes for many safety regulations and retirement issues - things that most people are happy to postpone thinking about rather than demand right now.

If consumers were determined enough to demand safer products RIGHT NOW, capitalism (corporate greed) would provide safer products and regulations wouldn't be needed.  It isn't the fault of corporate greed that environmental and safety regulations are needed - it is the fault of complacent consumers.

Linus wrote: Communism, as described per se in the Communist Manefesto by Karl Marx, IN THEORY is GREAT. But when you put the human element in it, NO MATTER WHAT, it will ALWAYS FAIL.

Common position, but I actually disagree.

The Communist Manifesto provides a good argument, in historical context, for who/why Marx thought that communism was a certainty AT THAT TIME, in the middle of the industrial revolution.

It also, IMO, provides a compelling argument for why it no longer makes sense.  All of Marx's discussion about the laborer as a commodity stopped making sense when we went from the industrial revolution to the computer/internet revolution.  Read those paragraphs again, thinking about how that applies to today's "knowledge workers" and homegrown internet entrepreneurs.

I think Marx proves himself wrong, 150 years later.

Clark Kent wrote: Linus wrote: Communism, as described per se in the Communist Manefesto by Karl Marx, IN THEORY is GREAT. But when you put the human element in it, NO MATTER WHAT, it will ALWAYS FAIL. Common position, but I actually disagree. The Communist Manifesto provides a good argument, in historical context, for who/why Marx thought that communism was a certainty AT THAT TIME, in the middle of the industrial revolution. It also, IMO, provides a compelling argument for why it no longer makes sense.  All of Marx's discussion about the laborer as a commodity stopped making sense when we went from the industrial revolution to the computer/internet revolution.  Read those paragraphs again, thinking about how that applies to today's "knowledge workers" and homegrown internet entrepreneurs. I think Marx proves himself wrong, 150 years later.

I agree about Marxism, but he does have a good point, Clark ... all it takes to ruin ANYTHING good is to get PEOPLE involved ...

hwayhzrd wrote: ... all it takes to ruin ANYTHING good is to get PEOPLE involved ...

Hard to argue with that...

.Ryan wrote: Clark, the evil of corporate greed I was speaking of is stuff that I really doubt anyone could call good. The skip out of spending an extra dollar on the Pento killed hundreds neadlessly in fender benders, the whole firestone thing

But it is incorrect to blame that on greed - instead, it should be blamed on stupidity and human error (and the subsequent coverup thereof).  Capitalism also gets screwed up when people get involved.  Each of those incidents resulted in huge losses to the companies involved.  The "correct" capitalist action would have been to fix the problem.

This is a very important point.  People will do stupid things - either because they are stupid, or because they are trying to avoid admitting that they made a mistake.  But these are still stupid things, and are actually CONTARY to the basic idea of corporate greed.  A perfectly rational greedy corporation would never have put out faulty Pintos or let explosive tires be out there.  The rational cost/benefit analysis says that it is a bad idea, from a greed perspective.

...the whole system of sweat shops that most of our stuff comes from...

It is very disputable whether sweat shops are bad or not.  Very disputable.

... the skimping on safety gear and standards in coal mines that led to the death of miners...

This is a more interesting example - we are currently seeing capitalism in action, as the public outcry essentially requires additional safety procedures.  At the same time, this is a good example of how capitalism will eventually get there, but not always fast enough. 

It is also a perfect example of how it is very much a matter of opinion what is "good".  Is it "good" that coal miners have dangerous jobs?  No.  But are we, as a society, willing to trade that for lower energy costs?  Apparently.  If people really cared about the coal miners, we would have demanded better safety, even if we had to pay an extra $1.12 per month for electricity.  As it turns out, we don't.  Perfect safety for miners would be prohibitively expensive, and everything else is a matter of degree.

I do not concede that the safety conditions of mines is necessarily a "bad" thing.

...the buying of politicians so that they are allowed to continue doing whatever they want...

Corruption is completely counter to the basics of capitalism.  Capitalism requires predictability and consistency.  The greatest asset of the US economy is the law and the courts.  A corrupt system is VERY BAD from a capitalist perspective - this is why foreign companies don't like investing in places with lots of corruption.  So this is NOT a good example of capitalist badness.  Capitalism opposes corruption.

...he was supposed to figure out rather it was cheaper to fix things and save lives or just let people get hurt/killed and then pay them off.....Those jobs exist!

Of course they do.  Welcome to reality.  Those jobs exist in socialist systems as well.  They exist in the military, they exist everywhere else.  Life is a balancing act.  Traffic would be safer if the speed limit were 15 mph everywhere.  But people would hate that, for personal, emotional, and economic reasons - so instead we have 40,000 dead every year on the highways.  This is not a capitalist issue - it is a reality issue.

Without stiff regulation, corporations would make this world hell!

And WITH stiff regulation, corporations will go elsewhere and benefit other people.

Capitalism is right up there with religion on  the ammount of harm it has caused humanity throughout history...

No offense, but that may be the dumbest thing I have seen on here in a long while.

Virtually everything good in your life is there in part due to the greed of a corporation.  Everything.  Religion, in fact, would be the sole exception - or God, rather, as religion is also corporate.

DBibeau855 wrote: Man, if he likes socialism or comunism so much, he can move to a socialist country, or if he loves comunism a lot he can move to north korea or china. Ask the north koreans if comunism works.

I don't think Ryan is headed in that direction at all.  As we have both indicated there are degrees.

Most of Europe and South America, as well as Canada, for instance, has more socialist features than the US, but none of them would qualify as truly communist or socialist places.

As to whether it "works" - again, a matter of definition.  The US health system provides some of the best health care in the world - to those that are covered.  The Canadian system provides pretty good care - to everybody.  Which is "better"?

DBibeau855 wrote: Well i love the candian health care system...

And there are many things to like.  But my point was that in this case you actually favor a socialist solution to a problem rather than a capitalist solution.  One size doesn't always fit all, and "better" isn't always obvious.

Linus wrote: Plus, when did I say anything about Nader?

I believe that is in response to me.