India to revisit response to Bhopal leak

[OneToughHerring]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/10364407.stm

"Some 3,500 people died within days and more than 15,000 in the years since."

Only 470 mil in compensation for that?! That's more casualties then 9/11.

[UnderseaLcpl]

This surprises you, Herring? Consider what kind of country the plant was operated in, the initial response, and the ultimate culpability of UC. One would think that a country with a strong socialist government and more safety and health regs than the US would have take UC to task, but it didn't. Why do you suppose that is?

[OneToughHerring]

Well I've heard of the incident but never really understood the maginitude of it. It is the biggest industrial catastrophe ever. Really grim death toll that could easily top the 3500 and be as high as 15 000 + and the wounded / otherwise affected.

Some 25 years after the gas leak, 390 tons of toxic chemicals abandoned at the UCIL plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater) in the region and affect thousands of Bhopal residents who depend on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
:nope:

Reading that wiki-entry it seems that there have been plenty of reasons as to why the issue is still around. One reason might be the fact that India is a developing nation and as such it doesn't warrant a bigger response from the world community for compensations, clean-up efforts by the guilty parties etc.

[FIREWALL]

Where did the 470 mil go ?

[OneToughHerring]

Where did the 470 mil go ?

Well at least for a new big cemetary.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Reading that wiki-entry it seems that there have been plenty of reasons as to why the issue is still around. One reason might be the fact that India is a developing nation and as such it doesn't warrant a bigger response from the world community for compensations, clean-up efforts by the guilty parties etc.

Why should the responsibility fall on the world community? India approved the Bhopal plant and it was built to their exacting specifications. True, the nation is a third-world country, but why should it be poor? It is a large and resource-rich country. What have they done wrong?

[OneToughHerring]

Why should the responsibility fall on the world community? India approved the Bhopal plant and it was built to their exacting specifications. True, the nation is a third-world country, but why should it be poor? It is a large and resource-rich country. What have they done wrong?

By not fighting wars of aggression around the globe?

[UnderseaLcpl]

By not fighting wars of aggression around the globe?

Sorry, I was under the impression you wanted to discuss this. If you'd rather turn a discussion about India into a USA bash-fest I'll be more than happy to listen.

[krashkart]

Why should the responsibility fall on the world community? India approved the Bhopal plant and it was built to their exacting specifications. True, the nation is a third-world country, but why should it be poor? It is a large and resource-rich country. What have they done wrong?

That's a good question. Any takers? I would like to know. :-?

OTH, come on over to the US and live here a few years. It's really not the messed-up warmonger as you've been lead to believe. :ping:

[OneToughHerring]

Sorry, I was under the impression you wanted to discuss this. If you'd rather turn a discussion about India into a USA bash-fest I'll be more than happy to listen.

The world community should value dead Indians as much as it values dead westerners. Simple enough? Yes, India is not very wealthy so it has to accept bad deals from big corporations and risks such as industrial accidents are much bigger then in the west where much more emphasis can be placed on worker safety etc. In India there is a kind of restriction - free capitalism in action that has very little rules that govern it and the few rules that exist aren't enforced.

And as far as India being a big country with lots of resources, what resources exactly?

[krashkart]

And as far as India being a big country with lots of resources, what resources exactly?

Manpower, for starts. But, how to employ them all and create a prosperous country? :o Many of their well-educated are over here working in the tech industries, so there's a portion of their workforce that could probably be put to better use in India. That doesn't take care of the unskilled labor force, though. Nor the question of natural resources, now that I think of it.

My brain is getting soggy.... http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=258&pictureid=2286

[UnderseaLcpl]

The world community should value dead Indians as much as it values dead westerners.
Or dead Africans. I agree. But sometimes there is just nothing you can do about the problem. Trillions have been spent in foreign aid to countries that have improved little, or not at all, or even moved backwards. You can't buy prosperity*, you have to earn it, and in order to do that you need a framework that promotes free trade.


Simple enough? Yes, India is not very wealthy so it has to accept bad deals from big corporations and risks such as industrial accidents are much bigger then in the west where much more emphasis can be placed on worker safety etc. In India there is a kind of restriction - free capitalism in action that has very little rules that govern it and the few rules that exist aren't enforced.
Actually, India is quite socialist. It takes years and years to even start a business there, as every proposal has to be put to a government committee and evaluated for merit. Then business has to navigate legal minefield just to operate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_labour_laws
I believe you were saying something about labor law? Feel free to look up other parts of Indian law, they're all pretty much that bad.

I think India's problem, if it has one regarding law, is that there are so many laws that they tend to be ignored and or selectively enforced. That's just plain bad for business.

And as far as India being a big country with lots of resources, what resources exactly? As krashkart mentioned, there is the vast amount of human resources, and India is one of the world's largest producers of coal. They have some oil, a host of semiprecious minerals and a fairly large supply of ore. Most of the land is arable, IIRC.

I'm not sure about the rest, but let me ask you this: What resources does Hong Kong have? Or Singapore?

The answer is none, they're just small rocks, but the free market has enabled people to generate standards of living far above those in India, and they even have greater population density.

Also of note is that Singapore is an almost totalitarian state, while Hong Kong remains mostly free in terms of individual rights, but both are prosperous because of the shared lassiez-faire approach to the market, suggesting that this is the key reason for their success.


*With the exception of nations that are drowning in oil or some other precious resource - Norway, UAE, Kuwait, etc...

[OneToughHerring]

Or dead Africans. I agree. But sometimes there is just nothing you can do about the problem. Trillions have been spent in foreign aid to countries that have improved little, or not at all, or even moved backwards. You can't buy prosperity*, you have to earn it, and in order to do that you need a framework that promotes free trade.

Who decides when there is nothing to do about a problem? Did you know that foreign aid, all of it together, is miniscule when compared to the value of all goods and services that are 'brought out of' the devoloping nations, India included? And I'm not just talking about the old era of colonialism, I'm talking about today. Why do you think outsourcing makes sense? Because they can pay a lot less to the workers in the developing world etc.

Actually, India is quite socialist. It takes years and years to even start a business there, as every proposal has to be put to a government committee and evaluated for merit. Then business has to navigate legal minefield just to operate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_labour_laws
I believe you were saying something about labor law? Feel free to look up
other parts of Indian law, they're all pretty much that bad. In the end the low salaries, lax laws (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-05/10/content_9826652.htm), etc. make sense for western companies to set up shop there, or in some other developing nation. Possibly India has raised itself from the lowest of the low but it is still far away from the likes of, say, China, a comparable nation. And even China has lots of issues with worker rights, environmental issues etc. like the link above shows.

I don't think I'm buying into your "India has lots of laws" - argument.

I think India's problem, if it has one regarding law, is that there are so many laws that they tend to be ignored and or selectively enforced. That's just plain bad for business. Bribery etc. goes a long way in the developing world.

As krashkart mentioned, there is the vast amount of human resources, and India is one of the world's largest producers of coal. They have some oil, a host of semiprecious minerals and a fairly large supply of ore. Most of the land is arable, IIRC. The case with India is that it can sell non-renewable natural resources but that's about it. And the thing about non-renewable natural resources is, they don't regenerate. And when the diamonds/gold/whatever runs out, the wealth has gone elsewhere and all that is left is a big hole in ground and lots of pollution in a particular developing nation.

I'm not sure about the rest, but let me ask you this: What resources does Hong Kong have? Or Singapore?Political alliances? Are you saying that countries like UK and US are willing to dump as much venture capital on India if they went a little more capitalist and stopped enforcing the laws that they have? Bhopal as a case doesn't speak in favour of that.

The answer is none, they're just small rocks, but the free market has enabled people to generate standards of living far above those in India, and they even have greater population density. Oh ok, "free market". Politics etc. had nothing to do with it.

Also of note is that Singapore is an almost totalitarian state, while Hong Kong remains mostly free in terms of individual rights, but both are prosperous because of the shared lassiez-faire approach to the market, suggesting that this is the key reason for their success.


*With the exception of nations that are drowning in oil or some other precious resource - Norway, UAE, Kuwait, etc...You know you talk about "free trade" etc. but as I'm sure you've heard economics, politics and even warfare are parts of the same entity. What became as a result of the Cold war and the economic warfare that went on during it doesn't necessarily reflect any kind of absolute theory about success of nations. If that were the case then countries like Sweden and Finland would be the poorest of the poor with low to moderate natural resources and quite social democrat models of society. Still these nations top the "best nations to live in" - lists year after year and decade after decade.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Who decides when there is nothing to do about a problem? Did you know that foreign aid, all of it together, is miniscule when compared to the value of all goods and services that are 'brought out of' the devoloping nations India included?
Brought out or bought out? True, prices are generally cheaper there, but the standard of living is also lower, so each dollar counts for more, and money given is money given no matter how you look at it. It's just frosting on the cake of economic development. Too bad all the people usually get of that is the crumbs, thanks to their own state.

And I'm not just talking about the old era of colonialism, I'm talking about today. Why do you think outsourcing makes sense? Because they can pay a lot less to the workers in the developing world etc.
Not to be an ass or anything OTH but, "duh"!:03: What you're missing is that the very thing you decry here is what enables countries to raise their standards of living and economic productivity. Everyone has to go through this process, the only difference is that some went through it before others and some still refuse. Look at what China has done with the special economic zones, where free trade is quite permissable. They aren't as good as Europe or Japan, but they are catching up fast, and they are certainly doing better than India. Most of India looks a lot more like impoverished western China because the policies are basically the same.

Possibly India has raised itself from the lowest of the low but it is still far away from the likes of, say, China, a comparable nation. And even China has lots of issues with worker rights, environmental issues etc. like the link above shows. The same is true of any developing nation. The US and Europe went through that phase, too, but even that phase beats what came before it, which is precisely why it is the next phase.

India is digging its own grave with its futile attempts at social engineering.

I don't think I'm buying into your "India has lots of laws" - argument. May I ask why? I showed you just a small section of the overview of it. World Bank agrees with me. The Indian economy apparently agrees with me. Why don't you?

Bribery etc. goes a long way in the developing world.

It does to some extent, mostly because developing nations and underdeveloped nations are prone to corruption, but bribery does not build nations. Free enterprise does.

The case with India is that it can sell non-renewable natural resources but that's about it. And the thing about non-renewable natural resources is, they don't reregenerate. And when the diamonds/gold/whatever runs out, the wealth has gone elsewhere and all that is left is a big hole in ground and lots of pollution in a particular developing nation.
Ok, what non-renewable natural resources does the first world have that India doesn't? It isn't wind, it isn't crops, it isn't water, it isn't animals or sunshine, so what is it?

Political alliances? Are you saying that countries like UK and US are willing to dump as much venture capital on India if they went a little more capitalist and stopped enforcing the laws that they have? Bhopal as a case doesn't speak in favour of that.
Are we talking about the nation-states themselves or the industry of said nation-states? Industry is still dumping quite a bit of venture capital into India, despite the obstacles, as a result there has been a flood of cheap Indian labor in those industries. The conditions aren't great, but they beat the hell out of what they were doing before, apparently.

Whether the US or the UK or anyone else dumps aid into India is quite irrelevant. There is no amount of aid on earth that is going to create an economy for 1 billion people under the system they have. Aid is just a bandage, not a fix.

Oh ok, "free market". Politics etc. had nothing to do with it. If you have a compelling case for politics being the motivating factor behind these nations' successes, I'd love to hear it. Please, show me how much aid, was given to these nations. Tell me how they are not subject to import quotas or taxes when they sell their products abroad, even in the US. I mean that. I don't know what you're on about, dude.

You know you talk about "free trade" etc. but as I'm sure you've heard economics, politics and even warfare are parts of the same entity. What became as a result of the Cold war and the economic warfare that went on during it doesn't necessarily reflect any kind of absolute theory about success of nations. If that were the case then countries like Sweden and Finland would be the poorest of the poor with low to moderate natural resources and quite social democrat models of society. Still these nations top the "best nations to live in" - lists year and decade after decade

Finland is #17 on the index of economic freedom and Finland is #21. Not great, but better than 90% of the world. However, Sweden and Finland also both have relatively new economies, restructured after WW2 by massive amounts of aid, and again by an influx of aid after the Cold War. Both nations are also in debt from heavy spending on social programs. Neither boasts a major currency. Their combined GDP is probably less than a trillion dollars. Hardly economic powerhouses.

Whether or not they can be qualified as "good" on a list of places to places to live depends upon the criterion used. Many indices use things like the presence of nationalized healthcare as a positive, when in fact there is a good case for it being a negative, especially in terms of economic sustainability.

[Respenus]

For a better overview of the subject and the reason why the amount paid is/was so low, I recommend the Amnesty International report, which can be found here (http://www.amnestyusa.org/business/bhopal.pdf). Quite a good read, if you have the time and answers the majority of questions.

[OneToughHerring]

Brought out or bought out? True, prices are generally cheaper there, but the standard of living is also lower, so each dollar counts for more, and money given is money given no matter how you look at it. It's just frosting on the cake of economic development. Too bad all the people usually get of that is the crumbs, thanks to their own state.

Even if there was zero corruption in the governments of the developing nations, and also in those of the developed nations, the compensations that are paid to the developing nations for the good and services they provide are below what a developed nation would pay another developed nation. Well I suppose it is cheap to live in an undeveloped nation in that there might even not be an economic system at all as we know it in the west. Does that mean they are well off? No.


Not to be an ass or anything OTH but, "duh"!:03: What you're missing is that the very thing you decry here is what enables countries to raise their standards of living and economic productivity. Everyone has to go through this process, the only difference is that some went through it before others and some still refuse. Look at what China has done with the special economic zones, where free trade is quite permissable. They aren't as good as Europe or Japan, but they are catching up fast, and they are certainly doing better than India. Most of India looks a lot more like impoverished western China because the policies are basically the same.

Exactly what process? When did, say, Monaco or Liechtenstein go through, say, malaria? I think they skipped that part. Time to introduce malaria to Monaco so we can even things out.

China's wealth is due to it's well educated work force which is due to their education system which has produced a hundred million - strong highly educated workforce. Due to capitalist ways most of India is still in the stone age.

The same is true of any developing nation. The US and Europe went through that phase, too, but even that phase beats what came before it, which is precisely why it is the next phase.

Err, no they didn't. Welth is not a step-by-step - process but rather a political agreement. Europe gave wealth to it's ally US and they together have given some wealth to Japan. It's like a seat at the table of wealth, or a membership in the rich nations/areas club. Global politics is highly involved.

India is digging its own grave with its futile attempts at social engineering.

I think the US is digging it's own grave with it's global tyranny.

May I ask why? I showed you just a small section of the overview of it. World Bank agrees with me. The Indian economy apparently agrees with me. Why don't you?

Who/what do you mean with the Indian economy / World bank?

It does to some extent, mostly because developing nations and underdeveloped nations are prone to corruption, but bribery does not build nations. Free enterprise does.

One and the same thing.

Ok, what non-renewable natural resources does the first world have that India doesn't? It isn't wind, it isn't crops, it isn't water, it isn't animals or sunshine, so what is it?

Wealth gleaned from exploiting the poorer part of the globe. When is, say, Belgium going to return the wealth they stole from their colonies? And when will developing nations pay the same price for the same goods to developing nations as they do to other developed nations?

Are we talking about the nation-states themselves or the industry of said nation-states? Industry is still dumping quite a bit of venture capital into India, despite the obstacles, as a result there has been a flood of cheap Indian labor in those industries. The conditions aren't great, but they beat the hell out of what they were doing before, apparently.

Whether the US or the UK or anyone else dumps aid into India is quite irrelevant. There is no amount of aid on earth that is going to create an economy for 1 billion people under the system they have. Aid is just a bandage, not a fix.

Yes because foreign aid is such a miniscule part of the value that is gleaned from the developing nations. If only for the first time in history the developed nations were given the same price for the same good and services they produce as developed nations receive for theirs.

If you have a compelling case for politics being the motivating factor behind these nations' successes, I'd love to hear it. Please, show me how much aid, was given to these nations. Tell me how they are not subject to import quotas or taxes when they sell their products abroad, even in the US. I mean that. I don't know what you're on about, dude.

Read up on the history of the economic side of the Cold War, focus on the flows of currency.

Finland is #17 on the index of economic freedom and Finland is #21. Not great, but better than 90% of the world. However, Sweden and Finland also both have relatively new economies, restructured after WW2 by massive amounts of aid, and again by an influx of aid after the Cold War. Both nations are also in debt from heavy spending on social programs. Neither boasts a major currency. Their combined GDP is probably less than a trillion dollars. Hardly economic powerhouses.

Per capita it's not bad at all.

Whether or not they can be qualified as "good" on a list of places to places to live depends upon the criterion used. Many indices use things like the presence of nationalized healthcare as a positive, when in fact there is a good case for it being a negative, especially in terms of economic sustainability.

If a country can have nationalized health care then what's your problem with it? You're free to have a private health care for the citizens of the nation of the bald eagle. Looking at the numbers though it seems your privatized system is much more expensive.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Even if there was zero corruption in the governments of the developing nations.....Exactly what process? When did, say, Monaco or Liechtenstein go through, say, malaria? I think they skipped that part. Time to introduce malaria to Monaco so we can even things out.
I think Monaco and Lichtenstein had problems of their own, including influenza and two world wars. Didn't stop them. As far as the process I goes I am referring to the process of development. Most nations went through a lousy industrialization phase at one time or another. That's a step on the ladder. Workers move from the farm to the factories, from the factories to the office buildings, and from the office buildings to the labs and hihg-rises and multi-billion dollar industries that characterize a modern economy.

China's wealth is due to it's well educated work force which is due to their education system which has produced a hundred million - strong highly educated workforce. Due to capitalist ways most of India is still in the stone age. That's the most ridiculously backwards thing I've ever heard. Deng Xiaoping instituted major market reforms in China back in the 70's, including the SEZ's. India has no comprable figure or policy.

Err, no they didn't. Welth is not a step-by-step - process but rather a political agreement. Europe gave wealth to it's ally US and they together have given some wealth to Japan. It's like a seat at the table of wealth, or a membership in the rich nations/areas club. Global politics is highly involved.
It is highly involved, but it shouldn't be. The market is the best force for distributing wealth because it is so impartial. You don't particularly care where your dinner comes from or who bought the product that helped pay your salary, do you? Money doesn't care where or who you are, only that you have something to exchange.

What I think people like you fail to realize is that in giving power to states you are giving power to all established interests. You kill your own agenda through your misguided trust.



I think the US is digging it's own grave with it's global tyranny.
And I think everyone else's problems are their own. It's a good thing for many nations that people like me aren't in charge, because I wouldn't lift a state finger to help, partially because of that attitude.

Who/what do you mean with the Indian economy / World bank? The Indian economy sucks, and World bank was in the last reference I provided. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that...:06:

One and the same thing. You equate bribery and corruption with free enterprise? That's odd, considering the billions of mutually beneficial transactions that take place every day as compared to the few instances of fraud or coercion.
Wealth gleaned from exploiting the poorer part of the globe. When is, say, Belgium going to return the wealth they stole from their colonies? And when will developing nations pay the same price for the same goods to developing nations as they do to other developed nations?
When they let the market work, and not a moment before. Do I have to list all the nations that have pulled themselves out of poverty through free-market mechanisms?

It seems that you're under the impression that some policy of redistribution of wealth would cure the ills of global society. That is simply incorrect. It's like pouring water in a gasoline engine; everyone needs water and it's good, but it doesn't make engines work, apart from primitive ones or ones in a unique position. People need economic activity to advance, and economic activity comes from productive activity and trade. It is not something that can simply be made to happen, the work has to be done.


Yes because foreign aid is such a miniscule part of the value that is gleaned from the developing nations. If only for the first time in history the developed nations were given the same price for the same good and services they produce as developed nations receive for theirs.

If prices were the same nobody would buy their products and they would continue to languish in poverty, not that such a thing is possible anyway. The only advantage that developing nations have is low labor prices. They can't compete with modern mechanization and science, to say nothing of the disadvantage in shipping costs.

If all prices were equal, only those nations that could sustain themselves or that were in geographic proximity to needed resources would prosper. Everyone else would be screwed. The price system is what makes their beneficience possible, at least, when it is allowed to do so.


Read up on the history of the economic side of the Cold War, focus on the flows of currency. I see aid being given to all kinds of nations in the post-war era, much of it form the US. Some succeeded, some didn't. Some nations got more aid than others, but those were the nations most directly affected by the war, and the most politically important ones thereafter. Other than that, I see no pattern.

Per capita it's not bad at all.
But it isn't near as good as it could be.

If a country can have nationalized health care then what's your problem with it? You're free to have a private health care for the citizens of the nation of the bald eagle. Looking at the numbers though it seems your privatized system is much more expensive. It's also a lot better, and we can afford it. US private healthcare is expensive, make no mistake, but what it costs now is peanuts to what it is going to cost by 2014 if Medicare/Medicaid is any indication. Getting government out of healthcare to increase the number of doctors and reduce both liability and research costs would be my solution.

I don't have any problems with other countries using national healthcare. In fact, I encourage them to do it because it means more immigrants and more doctors for us. A lassiez-faire healthcare system would produce an abundance of cheap healthcare in relatively short order, as evidenced by the rock-bottom costs of specialist, fairly unregulated fields like Lasik eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. What once cost thousands now costs hundreds, even with advertising and overhead costs, and the surgeries are better than they used to be.

Be it healthcare or any other industry, the US could experience a revolution in economic development if it would only let go of said industry. Lucky for you that we don't, because then we'd be attracting your best and brightest, and you'd get a taste of real US global tyranny unless you abandon socialist models.

[OneToughHerring]

I think Monaco and Lichtenstein had problems of their own, including influenza and two world wars. Didn't stop them. As far as the process I goes I am referring to the process of development. Most nations went through a lousy industrialization phase at one time or another. That's a step on the ladder. Workers move from the farm to the factories, from the factories to the office buildings, and from the office buildings to the labs and hihg-rises and multi-billion dollar industries that characterize a modern economy.

Oh yea those nazis really went to town on those citizens of Monaco and Liechtenstein. Oh wait...:doh:

That's the most ridiculously backwards thing I've ever heard. Deng Xiaoping instituted major market reforms in China back in the 70's, including the SEZ's. India has no comprable figure or policy. China is a socialist nation to this day regardless of some lessening of economic politics. India is, and has always been, a capitalist nation. I suspect some bad blood stemming from UK's colonial exit from that nation is partly due to the bad deal India has received in the global economy.

It is highly involved, but it shouldn't be. The market is the best force for distributing wealth because it is so impartial. The market? What or who exactly is that? And since when did politics leave economics? What year exactly? I mean, politics and economics were intertwined in Napoleons times, and during the nazi reign. What year did politics and economy become separate?

You don't particularly care where your dinner comes from or who bought the product that helped pay your salary, do you? Money doesn't care where or who you are, only that you have something to exchange.

What I think people like you fail to realize is that in giving power to states you are giving power to all established interests. You kill your own agenda through your misguided trust. Who makes the money? The martians? Did the economic and monetary system just appear out of thin air?

Time to post this image that jimbuna likes post.

http://wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/winter/wp-content/uploads/oz.jpg

Capitalism as a system that exploits the average people has existed since the times of the pharaohs, it's time to evolve.


And I think everyone else's problems are their own. It's a good thing for many nations that people like me aren't in charge, because I wouldn't lift a state finger to help, partially because of that attitude. Your 'help' isn't even wanted.

The Indian economy sucks, and World bank was in the last reference I provided. I don't know how to make it any simpler than that...:06: Where does the World bank say that Indian lives are worth less then western lives? Provide linkie, please.

You equate bribery and corruption with free enterprise? That's odd, considering the billions of mutually beneficial transactions that take place every day as compared to the few instances of fraud or coercion. That's how you think eh? If there is an unjust system at place like the one during the nazi reign, every transaction is corrupt at least to a certain extent.

When they let the market work, and not a moment before. Do I have to list all the nations that have pulled themselves out of poverty through free-market mechanisms? Please do. How about Thailand? Decades of being the west's whorehouse. Result? Still a very poor nation. Got any other examples?

It seems that you're under the impression that some policy of redistribution of wealth would cure the ills of global society. That is simply incorrect. It's like pouring water in a gasoline engine; everyone needs water and it's good, but it doesn't make engines work, apart from primitive ones or ones in a unique position. People need economic activity to advance, and economic activity comes from productive activity and trade. It is not something that can simply be made to happen, the work has to be done. I think that having the US vanish would cure the ills of global society.

If prices were the same nobody would buy their products and they would continue to languish in poverty, not that such a thing is possible anyway. The only advantage that developing nations have is low labor prices. They can't compete with modern mechanization and science, to say nothing of the disadvantage in shipping costs. Then they have to take wealth by force, they are entitled to it.

If all prices were equal, only those nations that could sustain themselves or that were in geographic proximity to needed resources would prosper. Everyone else would be screwed. The price system is what makes their beneficience possible, at least, when it is allowed to do so. Now we are getting somewhere, the price system. What is this system and who sets the prices? Let me answer that for you, the west and in the west the economic and political elites.

I see aid being given to all kinds of nations in the post-war era, much of it form the US. Some succeeded, some didn't. Some nations got more aid than others, but those were the nations most directly affected by the war, and the most politically important ones thereafter. Other than that, I see no pattern. Israel has gotten a lot from the US. More then Finland, that's for sure.

But it isn't near as good as it could be. How about the US send some venture capital money our way. We'll even pay it back, unlike those Israelis.

It's also a lot better, and we can afford it. US private healthcare is expensive, make no mistake, but what it costs now is peanuts to what it is going to cost by 2014 if Medicare/Medicaid is any indication. Getting government out of healthcare to increase the number of doctors and reduce both liability and research costs would be my solution.

I don't have any problems with other countries using national healthcare. In fact, I encourage them to do it because it means more immigrants and more doctors for us. A lassiez-faire healthcare system would produce an abundance of cheap healthcare in relatively short order, as evidenced by the rock-bottom costs of specialist, fairly unregulated fields like Lasik eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. What once cost thousands now costs hundreds, even with advertising and overhead costs, and the surgeries are better than they used to be.

Be it healthcare or any other industry, the US could experience a revolution in economic development if it would only let go of said industry. Lucky for you that we don't, because then we'd be attracting your best and brightest, and you'd get a taste of real US global tyranny unless you abandon socialist models.Many evil nations have wealth. Even if a nations has wealth doesn't make it a good and worthy nation. The US can only get doctors by buying them from abroad, the same with the so called US Nobel price winners.

[Jimbuna]

Time to post this image that jimbuna likes post.

http://wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/winter/wp-content/uploads/oz.jpg





Yeah well here's another one I save for you Richard.

http://www.motivationalz.com/pictures/internet_tough_guys.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

Oh yea those nazis really went to town on those citizens of Monaco and Liechtenstein. Oh wait...:doh:
Who said anything about the Nazis? All is said was that they endured. Neutral nations with relatively free-market economies tend to do that. Why no mention of Switzerland as well?


China is a socialist nation to this day regardless of some lessening of economic politics. India is, and has always been, a capitalist nation. I suspect some bad blood stemming from UK's colonial exit from that nation is partly due to the bad deal India has received in the global economy. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck......
India may technically be capitalist, but the form of capitalism practiced there is all but indistinguishable from socialism.

The market? What or who exactly is that? And since when did politics leave economics? What year exactly? I mean, politics and economics were intertwined in Napoleons times, and during the nazi reign. What year did politics and economy become separate?

Well, the market is the sum total of everyone's individual transactions, but I don't recall saying that politics ever left economics; only that it should. The state provides a "path of least resistance", if you will, for established interests. Generally speaking, though, the more divorced a state is from economics(aside from proper management of the currency supply, which I will mention next), the better.

Who makes the money? The martians? Did the economic and monetary system just appear out of thin air? Technically, yes. People were bartering long before the advent of a formal medium of exchange, and they developed currencies on their own. I'm serious. Check out some of the anthropological studies of stone-age tribes around the planet and such. People just naturally develop mediums for exchange, be it shells or stones or metals, or whatever.

I assume you point is that government regulates the currency in a modern economy, which is true, and it should be so. However, governments have a tendency to print more money than they should to finance expenditures. The very simple reason for this is that taxation is not popular, and it creates immediate economic pressure. Thus, the easiest and most politically popular way to generate revenue is to print more money, which indirectly makes all other money worth less by virtue of supply and demand. Not everything has to be subversive or complicated.

Capitalism as a system that exploits the average people has existed since the times of the pharaohs, it's time to evolve.

Okay, now that's the most bass-ackwards thing I've ever heard. The ruling powers have been closely involved in restricting, controlling, and taxing trade for most of human history. That's why the emergence of a middle-class was so revolutionary. I'm starting to think that you're just looking to stir up controversey for its' own sake.

Your 'help' isn't even wanted.
Hundreds of foreign lobbyists in Washington say otherwise, but I'd be glad not to give it.

Where does the World bank say that Indian lives are worth less then western lives? Provide linkie, please.
They didn't. They just said that reform of the indian economy is needed. And I already gave you the link. Didn't you read it:-?

That's how you think eh? If there is an unjust system at place like the one during the nazi reign, every transaction is corrupt at least to a certain extent.
Now we're getting into philosophy but I agree to some extent. I don't like seeing private interests that have co-opted the state succeed any more than you do, hence my insistence on getting the state out of the equation.

Please do. How about Thailand? Decades of being the west's whorehouse. Result? Still a very poor nation. Got any other examples?
Yeah, every one of the Tigers, and much of Europe. Thailand is an unstable nation plagued by coups, btw; you're oversimplifying their case.

I think that having the US vanish would cure the ills of global society. That's because you are naive enough to believe that nobody would take our place. The income gap didn't begin with the US, and it won't end with it. It's just been the rule throughout history. The nice thing about capitalism is that there is more wealth for every participant, even if the gap stays the same. Excessive government, on the other hand, has a very long tradition of reducing people to serfdom.

Then they have to take wealth by force, they are entitled to it. Really? How interesting. I bet there are some African warlords who would agree. Why don't you join their revolutionary ranks and live in the mess you make for yourself, rather than demand that the US provide the wealth? For that matter, I thought you said our help wasn't wanted. Are you insinuating that you want our wealth but not if it is given freely?

For that matter, I'd like to see them try.

Now we are getting somewhere, the price system. What is this system and who sets the prices? Let me answer that for you, the west and in the west the economic and political elites.
No... the market sets the prices based on supply and demand, save where the state intervenes. That's how we get bargain bins and premium products. That's why I pay $2.50 a gallon for gas and you pay much more. In Texas, the market serves me, but your market serves the state.

Israel has gotten a lot from the US. More then Finland, that's for sure. True, and I'd prefer that we give neither of you anything.

How about the US send some venture capital money our way. We'll even pay it back, unlike those Israelis.
What for? I thought you lived in a happy place. At least you're not surrounded by milions of Arabs who want to kill you. But again, I'd give neither of you anything.

Many evil nations have wealth. Even if a nations has wealth doesn't make it a good and worthy nation. The US can only get doctors by buying them from abroad, the same with the so called US Nobel price winners.

Many evil nations are also poor. It is government that makes a nation evil, not the nation itself. I would like to see a reduction or elimination of interventionist US policy just as much as you would, but it ain't in the cards right now. That's why I can't understand why you argue with me; I'm all for getting the US out of other people's business and letting them do their own thing, but you act as if I'm pushing for some imperialist agenda. There are only a few explanations for that, and I bet I know which one pertains to you:DL

[OneToughHerring]

Who said anything about the Nazis? All is said was that they endured. Neutral nations with relatively free-market economies tend to do that. Why no mention of Switzerland as well?

So? Global economic system descends from the unjust systems of the past, there has never been a time when developing nations were given a fair deal. The west is constantly supporting it's own products with wealth stolen from the developing world.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck......
India may technically be capitalist, but the form of capitalism practiced there is all but indistinguishable from socialism. So you want more Bhopals in India eh?

Well, the market is the sum total of everyone's individual transactions, but I don't recall saying that politics ever left economics; only that it should. The state provides a "path of least resistance", if you will, for established interests. Generally speaking, though, the more divorced a state is from economics(aside from proper management of the currency supply, which I will mention next), the better. Well the US is free to give up it's influence on the markets. The Europe is tired of paying the bill for US ponzi schemers.

Technically, yes. People were bartering long before the advent of a formal medium of exchange, and they developed currencies on their own. I'm serious. Check out some of the anthropological studies of stone-age tribes around the planet and such. People just naturally develop mediums for exchange, be it shells or stones or metals, or whatever. Even in the stone age the 'market' didn't exist outside the influence of the tribes/communities.

I assume you point is that government regulates the currency in a modern economy, which is true, and it should be so. However, governments have a tendency to print more money than they should to finance expenditures. The very simple reason for this is that taxation is not popular, and it creates immediate economic pressure. Thus, the easiest and most politically popular way to generate revenue is to print more money, which indirectly makes all other money worth less by virtue of supply and demand. Not everything has to be subversive or complicated.A lot of the monetary system is a state and global sham used to fool the masses into thinking that they have a fair deal etc. The real wealth is owned by a small group of individuals who are like the modern day equivalents of the pharaohs.

Okay, now that's the most bass-ackwards thing I've ever heard. The ruling powers have been closely involved in restricting, controlling, and taxing trade for most of human history. That's why the emergence of a middle-class was so revolutionary. I'm starting to think that you're just looking to stir up controversey for its' own sake. Capitalism as I see it, we may see this thing differently, is a system where a ruling elite has total power over the masses who are born into poverty. The ruling elite (business, religious, political) is born into wealth and passes their wealth to their offspring. This is the system as it has been since the dawn of man. Capitalism, monarchism, aristocracy and even many forms of socialism are only differing forms of this dictatorial form of governing. True democracy hasn't yet been seen.

Hundreds of foreign lobbyists in Washington say otherwise, but I'd be glad not to give it. Lobbyism as it exists in the US gives disproportionate power to groups such as the tobacco, alcohol and weapon industries.

They didn't. They just said that reform of the indian economy is needed. And I already gave you the link. Didn't you read it:-?If the World bank is in favour of keeping India's environmental codes as lax as they were during the Bhopal disaster then they should be held guilty of any future disasters.

Now we're getting into philosophy but I agree to some extent. I don't like seeing private interests that have co-opted the state succeed any more than you do, hence my insistence on getting the state out of the equation. I don't think Americans really want to see the state of US vanish. It's all just talk, like always with the Americans.

Yeah, every one of the Tigers, and much of Europe. Thailand is an unstable nation plagued by coups, btw; you're oversimplifying their case. Well how many more decades of being the west's whorehouse does Thailand have in front of it before it can begin to educate it's youngs instead of using them as child prostitutes for the western tourists?

That's because you are naive enough to believe that nobody would take our place. The income gap didn't begin with the US, and it won't end with it. It's just been the rule throughout history. The nice thing about capitalism is that there is more wealth for every participant, even if the gap stays the same. Excessive government, on the other hand, has a very long tradition of reducing people to serfdom. I don't think anarcho-states have been that successfull in the past.

Really? How interesting. I bet there are some African warlords who would agree. Why don't you join their revolutionary ranks and live in the mess you make for yourself, rather than demand that the US provide the wealth? For that matter, I thought you said our help wasn't wanted. Are you insinuating that you want our wealth but not if it is given freely? They are just following the lead set by the world's policeman. Aggressive warfare works, Israel good example of this.

For that matter, I'd like to see them try. Bring it on, eh? Well it is being 'brought on'.

No... the market sets the prices based on supply and demand, save where the state intervenes. That's how we get bargain bins and premium products. That's why I pay $2.50 a gallon for gas and you pay much more. In Texas, the market serves me, but your market serves the state.

True, and I'd prefer that we give neither of you anything. So you're a nationalist, haven't you been saying that you hate the government? Regions and economic elites set the rules and right now Europe and US are setting the prices with which for example Africa can sell it's goods and services, it's been like this always.

What for? I thought you lived in a happy place. At least you're not surrounded by milions of Arabs who want to kill you. But again, I'd give neither of you anything. Oh you only give money to other nations that wage wars of aggression like Israel. Since Finland is a very peaceful nation we get nothing. That's our reward for being peacefull, I get it now. Finland needs to start taking things by force, just like the developing nations, so that US with it politics doesn't destroy us.

Many evil nations are also poor. It is government that makes a nation evil, not the nation itself. I would like to see a reduction or elimination of interventionist US policy just as much as you would, but it ain't in the cards right now. That's why I can't understand why you argue with me; I'm all for getting the US out of other people's business and letting them do their own thing, but you act as if I'm pushing for some imperialist agenda. There are only a few explanations for that, and I bet I know which one pertains to you:DLWell you are pushing for an imperialist agenda, you're a nationalist and you hate government at the same time.

[UnderseaLcpl]

So? Global economic system descends from the unjust systems of the past, there has never been a time when developing nations were given a fair deal. The west is constantly supporting it's own products with wealth stolen from the developing world.
Well, you should probably inform the developing world of that, as most of it seems to think it's getting a good deal. Otherwise it wouldn't trade with us, save for in instances where it's forced to trade by its own states.

So you want more Bhopals in India eh?
I have no idea how you even arrived at that conclusion. I just said that Bhopal was partially the fault of the Indian government, and I made a case for the government being restrictive and socialist, and you somehow arrive at the conclusion that I want more Bhopals? Of course I don't. Such things are counterproductive.

Now, if we trade with India and India brings that upon itself, that's their own fault. It's tragic, and I hate the idea, but what shall we do about it? Cease free trade and condemn India to poverty? Invade India and condemn it to poverty? As one so against interventionist US policy, I'm surprised that you have any qualms against us not doing anything.

Well the US is free to give up it's influence on the markets. The Europe is tired of paying the bill for US ponzi schemers.
Pnzi schemers :roll: Whatever you may think, Europe still trades on the dollar standard for a reason. My guess is that they aren't so tired of it as you are.

Even in the stone age the 'market' didn't exist outside the influence of the tribes/communities.
I guess I don't see your point. Does the market exist outside today's much larger communities any more than it did then? What do you mean by outside?

A lot of the monetary system is a state and global sham used to fool the masses into thinking that they have a fair deal etc. The real wealth is owned by a small group of individuals who are like the modern day equivalents of the pharaohs.
I'd be interested to hear your theory of how everyone would get a "fair" deal without ruining the incentive that fuels the engines of economies.
The essence of capitalism is that it is truly fair by being unfair. It generates meritocracy when it is permitted to do so, most of the time. There are, of course, exceptions, as there will be with any system, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the tremendous amount of legitimate trade that goes on daily. It hardly resembles the time of the Pharohs.

Capitalism as I see it, we may see this thing differently, is a system where a ruling elite has total power over the masses who are born into poverty. The ruling elite (business, religious, political) is born into wealth and passes their wealth to their offspring. This is the system as it has been since the dawn of man. Capitalism, monarchism, aristocracy and even many forms of socialism are only differing forms of this dictatorial form of governing. True democracy hasn't yet been seen.
Well,we're agreed on some points there. Ther has been no true democracy, and yes, capitalism does favor the elite, like any other system. But you're missing a couple of concepts integral to capitalism. One is social mobility, which has been aptly demonstrated quite handily by free economies, and the other is an overall increase in the standard of living. Free-market economics is not a zero-sum game. More wealth for one means more wealth for others, so even if we are locked into the same general hierarchy, those at the bottom are still far better off than they would be under another system.

I doubt there's anything I can say to convince you of that, but consider that hundreds of millions of people worldwide, even from Europe, jump at the chance to start at the bottom in the US rather than remain where they are. We owe that to our relative economic freedom and the relative ease of getting into this country (which is still very difficult for most:down:).

Lobbyism as it exists in the US gives disproportionate power to groups such as the tobacco, alcohol and weapon industries.
I'm aware of that fact and I speak against it all the time. I don't like industries taking advantage of government any more than you do. My solution is to strip the government of power to cater to these industries, forcing them to compete. Others favor trying to strip lobbyists of power, and they are usually successful. We've already seen where such "success" has led us. It is not a simple matter of passing a law or signing a bill. The lobbyists will always find a way to climb the tree if the fruit is sweet enough. I'd prefer to give them no fruit to begin with.

If the World bank is in favour of keeping India's environmental codes as lax as they were during the Bhopal disaster then they should be held guilty of any future disasters. I'm not aware of the World Bank favoring India's environmental codes or of the same being lax, other than that they are so numerous and indecipherable as to be unenforceable. India spends a considerable portion of its GDP on government, and I don't even need to look up the figures to tell you that. It's a natural result of their system and I know I am correct by that fact alone. All that expenditure has not helped them enforce their codes any more effectively, however. On the contrary, their situation grows worse every day. The largest "democracy":roll: in the world can't even keep its citizens from dying en masse from preventable diseases and poor sanitation.

I don't think Americans really want to see the state of US vanish. It's all just talk, like always with the Americans.
I don't want to see it vanish either, I just want to see it limited. Do you imagine that I derive some kind of sadistic pleasure from seeing my nation interfere in the affairs of other nations to its own detriment? I most certainly do not. I'd rather see the US lead the world by example than force.

Well how many more decades of being the west's whorehouse does Thailand have in front of it before it can begin to educate it's youngs instead of using them as child prostitutes for the western tourists?
I don't know. That depends on Thailand.

I don't think anarcho-states have been that successfull in the past.
Depends upon how you define anarcho-state. I'd be happy to see the US use the same standards Hong Kong or Switzerland do, and they are very successful nations. I'd probably go a bit further, just to be competitive, but there are plenty of examples of lassiez-faire states trouncing their peers on a regular basis.

They are just following the lead set by the world's policeman. Aggressive warfare works, Israel good example of this.
I don't think we should support Israel, either, so we have no quarrel here.

Bring it on, eh? Well it is being 'brought on'.
I wish it were. The truth is that the idiots in Washington actually know what they are doing....to some extent. They are well aware of the fact that their policies will ruin other economies before ours, if the past is any indication. You should be fighting them instead of me.

So you're a nationalist, haven't you been saying that you hate the government? Regions and economic elites set the rules and right now Europe and US are setting the prices with which for example Africa can sell it's goods and services, it's been like this always.
Well, yes, I am something of a nationalist and I do distrust the state. The two are not mutually exclusive. As many problems as I have with my nation, I still love it and I would like to see it become the nation I know it can be, rather than what it is now.

Oh you only give money to other nations that wage wars of aggression like Israel. Since Finland is a very peaceful nation we get nothing. That's our reward for being peacefull, I get it now. Finland needs to start taking things by force, just like the developing nations, so that US with it politics doesn't destroy us.
:rotfl2:I'll eagerly await the deployment of the Finnish army.

The real reason you get nothing is because you're doing okay, and supporting you is not politically popular. There are nations out there with a great deal more need than yours, and it is popular to support them. Again, if it were up to me, none of you would get anything. I don't say that because I dislike your nation or any other, but because I feel US foreign aid is counterproductive. We'd be better off granting nations we wanted to help exemption from import quotas, but we don't do that because of the industry lobbies, and the industry lobbies get their way because our government has enough power for them to pursue with vigor.

Well you are pushing for an imperialist agenda, you're a nationalist and you hate government at the same time.

You completely misunderstand my agenda, then. The generally accepted economic doctrine is that free trade generates wealth, especially for those most in need of it, and the empirical evidence speaks for itself. Forget what you know about "free" trade agreements. Most of them are nothing of the sort. Rather, they are comprised of all kinds of quotas and protections designed to keep foreign competitors out... and poor. I hate those just as much as you might.

Do you know what the #1 export of the US is? It's dollars. Wealth. We trade our wealth for other peoples' goods all the time, purely through the market. There is no better system of wealth redistribution on the planet, so long as the currency remains sound (being debauched as we speak), and other nations are free to sell us their wares (never really happened). If we could trade freely with other nations, our wealth would help to bring them out of poverty, as it has already done for many. We lose some wealth in the process, but we continually generate more in the form of new products, industries, and services, as well as refinement of those that already exist, and, through the admission of new citizens from other parts of the world, who bring their own ideas, effort, and productivity to our nation. That wealth in turn is sold to the rest of the world and so on and so forth.

We are more on the same side than you might think, OTH. I doubt we will ever agree entriely, but at least we can identify some common problems. As for the rest, I'll pit the (truly) free market against anything else you have to offer any day, because I know we'll win. :03:

[OneToughHerring]

Well, you should probably inform the developing world of that, as most of it seems to think it's getting a good deal. Otherwise it wouldn't trade with us, save for in instances where it's forced to trade by its own states.

Believe me they don't trade with you because they like you. You see, they are full of holy hatred of US and their hatred is being galvanized by the aggressive expansionistic spirit of capitalism. The end result won't be what you wished it to be.

Btw when is Russia going to change into a Scandinavian 'nice' country? I thought that would happen pretty soonish after 1990?

I have no idea how you even arrived at that conclusion. I just said that Bhopal was partially the fault of the Indian government, and I made a case for the government being restrictive and socialist, and you somehow arrive at the conclusion that I want more Bhopals? Of course I don't. Such things are counterproductive.

Now, if we trade with India and India brings that upon itself, that's their own fault. It's tragic, and I hate the idea, but what shall we do about it? Cease free trade and condemn India to poverty? Invade India and condemn it to poverty? As one so against interventionist US policy, I'm surprised that you have any qualms against us not doing anything. Can global corporations do anything wrong? What about BP, can BP do anything wrong? What if instead of 11 BP had caused the deaths of 15 000 Americans?

Pnzi schemers :roll: Whatever you may think, Europe still trades on the dollar standard for a reason. My guess is that they aren't so tired of it as you are. I could tell you stories about how big parts of Finnish industry feels about the dollar and it's terrible value. And yes, ponzi schemers. Global recessions start from the US and the rest of the planet has to pay for their mistakes.

I guess I don't see your point. Does the market exist outside today's much larger communities any more than it did then? What do you mean by outside?The market as you describe isn't some mystical creature although I'm not suprised to see this 'faith' Americans seem to have in the market and the mystical qualities it has since they are so prone to religions.

I'd be interested to hear your theory of how everyone would get a "fair" deal without ruining the incentive that fuels the engines of economies.
The essence of capitalism is that it is truly fair by being unfair. It generates meritocracy when it is permitted to do so, most of the time. There are, of course, exceptions, as there will be with any system, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the tremendous amount of legitimate trade that goes on daily. It hardly resembles the time of the Pharohs.Then why the link between the US and old colonial regimes? Why did US defend the South African apartheid regime for so long? The ancient Romans were capitalists too and they called their empire 'benign' and 'good' and 'magnificent' and that the natives of the conquered regions should feel good about becoming the slaves of the Romans.

I see this more as a situation of one nation, the US, trying to force it's rule on others. We didn't dig when the nazis or the soviets tried to force their rule on us, we don't dig the US trying to do the same thing.

Well,we're agreed on some points there. Ther has been no true democracy, and yes, capitalism does favor the elite, like any other system. But you're missing a couple of concepts integral to capitalism. One is social mobility, which has been aptly demonstrated quite handily by free economies, and the other is an overall increase in the standard of living. Free-market economics is not a zero-sum game. More wealth for one means more wealth for others, so even if we are locked into the same general hierarchy, those at the bottom are still far better off than they would be under another system. Social mobility will always be more of a mirage then anything else. When the masses see that it is just a mirage they will revolt against it. The people who are the most oppressed are the various native people of the US, Europe and the rest of the world. These people have usually zero possibility of social mobility.

I doubt there's anything I can say to convince you of that, but consider that hundreds of millions of people worldwide, even from Europe, jump at the chance to start at the bottom in the US rather than remain where they are. We owe that to our relative economic freedom and the relative ease of getting into this country (which is still very difficult for most:down:). Well the US is able to 'buy' it's Nobel winners from abroad so I guess there is a point to what you're saying. The lure of the money exists but even the Roman kingdom couldn't lure in the foreign dignitaries and generals indefinitely. And in the type of high powered macro economic environment that you seem to favour instead of a more down to earth - type economy, really big changes can happen literally in an instant.

I'm aware of that fact and I speak against it all the time. I don't like industries taking advantage of government any more than you do. My solution is to strip the government of power to cater to these industries, forcing them to compete. Others favor trying to strip lobbyists of power, and they are usually successful. We've already seen where such "success" has led us. It is not a simple matter of passing a law or signing a bill. The lobbyists will always find a way to climb the tree if the fruit is sweet enough. I'd prefer to give them no fruit to begin with. Yes. I hope you do manage to solve your problems with these evil corporations. Military industrial complex that Eisenhower talked about.

I'm not aware of the World Bank favoring India's environmental codes or of the same being lax, other than that they are so numerous and indecipherable as to be unenforceable. India spends a considerable portion of its GDP on government, and I don't even need to look up the figures to tell you that. It's a natural result of their system and I know I am correct by that fact alone. All that expenditure has not helped them enforce their codes any more effectively, however. On the contrary, their situation grows worse every day. The largest "democracy":roll: in the world can't even keep its citizens from dying en masse from preventable diseases and poor sanitation. Usually poor countries tend to spend a lot on their government because they have a lot of urgent needs that have to be solved. If, say, Microsoft wanted to help the Indian people and by helping I don't mean giving them free licences for Windows operating systems, they would have done so already. US pharmaceutical companies also like to use developing countries as a kind of a free range laboratory to test their wares. What 'benevolence'.

I don't want to see it vanish either, I just want to see it limited. Do you imagine that I derive some kind of sadistic pleasure from seeing my nation interfere in the affairs of other nations to its own detriment? I most certainly do not. I'd rather see the US lead the world by example than force. You know I wonder about that sadistic pleasure. Maybe not in your case but there have been plenty of examples of such behaviour with US's wars and economic policies.

I don't know. That depends on Thailand. Well what does Thailand still have to do to earn a place at the 'good capitalist country' - club that US chooses the members to?

Depends upon how you define anarcho-state. I'd be happy to see the US use the same standards Hong Kong or Switzerland do, and they are very successful nations. I'd probably go a bit further, just to be competitive, but there are plenty of examples of lassiez-faire states trouncing their peers on a regular basis. Hong Kong, the old opium colony of Britain, maybe that's a good comparison since the US is so involved in global drug trade and has always been. Switzerland that's still hiding tons of nazi gold and other shady money like proceeds from blood diamond trade. Nice examples.

How about Finland, a country that denies to cut corners and has built it's wellfare with hard work and emphasis on things such as nature and a peacefull foreign policy? Not exciting enough for you conflict-lovin' yanks?

I wish it were. The truth is that the idiots in Washington actually know what they are doing....to some extent. They are well aware of the fact that their policies will ruin other economies before ours, if the past is any indication. You should be fighting them instead of me.

Well, yes, I am something of a nationalist and I do distrust the state. The two are not mutually exclusive. As many problems as I have with my nation, I still love it and I would like to see it become the nation I know it can be, rather than what it is now. Yea but the US is not really a nation state like, say, European nations are with long history and ethnicities pretty much living in the regions where they were living since a pretty long time ago. In US nationality comes second, the individual comes first. The US was founded like Israel, with the principle of 'terra nullius', the empty country with ample space just waiting to be grabbed. There was the question of the native population but they were easily dispatched. Too bad the Israelis can't distribute liquer and disesased blankets to the Palestinian refugee camps.

:rotfl2:I'll eagerly await the deployment of the Finnish army. Finns can be a good friend, a very loyal friend. They can also be an extremely loyal enemy. It's the eastern mindset - thing. Fenno-Ugric language family together with the other ethnicities such as Sami.

The real reason you get nothing is because you're doing okay, and supporting you is not politically popular. There are nations out there with a great deal more need than yours, and it is popular to support them. Again, if it were up to me, none of you would get anything. I don't say that because I dislike your nation or any other, but because I feel US foreign aid is counterproductive. We'd be better off granting nations we wanted to help exemption from import quotas, but we don't do that because of the industry lobbies, and the industry lobbies get their way because our government has enough power for them to pursue with vigor.

You completely misunderstand my agenda, then. The generally accepted economic doctrine is that free trade generates wealth, especially for those most in need of it, and the empirical evidence speaks for itself. Forget what you know about "free" trade agreements. Most of them are nothing of the sort. Rather, they are comprised of all kinds of quotas and protections designed to keep foreign competitors out... and poor. I hate those just as much as you might.

Do you know what the #1 export of the US is? It's dollars. Wealth. We trade our wealth for other peoples' goods all the time, purely through the market. There is no better system of wealth redistribution on the planet, so long as the currency remains sound (being debauched as we speak), and other nations are free to sell us their wares (never really happened). If we could trade freely with other nations, our wealth would help to bring them out of poverty, as it has already done for many. We lose some wealth in the process, but we continually generate more in the form of new products, industries, and services, as well as refinement of those that already exist, and, through the admission of new citizens from other parts of the world, who bring their own ideas, effort, and productivity to our nation. That wealth in turn is sold to the rest of the world and so on and so forth.

We are more on the same side than you might think, OTH. I doubt we will ever agree entriely, but at least we can identify some common problems. As for the rest, I'll pit the (truly) free market against anything else you have to offer any day, because I know we'll win. :03:The free market is just a euphemism, Stalin wasn't a great leader either but the politbüro just insisted that he should be called such.

[UnderseaLcpl]

It is clear to me that we aren't going to reach any more agreement on this subject than we already have. Your views confuse me, Herring, as it seems that you both blame the US for sorry states of affairs the world over and at the same time lambast it for not being more proactive. You apparently dislike US business models, but you also want the wealth that those models generate.

Free trade doctrine (which admittedly, has yet to really be practiced) has been gaining ground since the end of WW2 because it has worked so well, even in small amounts, and yet you apparently want to drag us the other direction through some kind of as-yet-undefined apportionment system or something. The Finnish model isn't exactly a model for success, either. It gets by, but it is still in debt. There are nations less well-appointed than Finland that are wealthier. The standard of living isn't that great, and the economy is not a mover. All in all, I'd rate it a "meh".

That said, at least we agree that the US needs to make some changes, even if we don't agree on the direction.