the neoliberal vision of the future

[onarchy]

What's not to like?

I have to say that I was impressed by this. Here is a BBC report on it.



I don't know all the details of the Free Trade Zone, but from what I could tell this bodes very, very well for Africa.

 

[camouflage]

I have to say that I was impressed by this. Here is a BBC report on it.



I don't know all the details of the Free Trade Zone, but from what I could tell this bodes very, very well for Africa.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I have to say that I was impressed by this.

I thought you would be. Your frequent allusions to Ayn Rand were an indication that you're a science fiction fan.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Actually, I don't think that "economic warfare" is the right term here. NOT doing business with a regime is not warfare. It is more akin to Atlas Shrugging, i.e. the men of ability that go on strike. This happens everywhere socialism is forced upon them. Some flee the country, some retire and some actively choose not to buy anything from a socialist regime. These are peaceful actions (they don't involve force). Of course when this happens socialists angrily wave their fists at the men of ability and rant about how they "destroy" the country and how they "should" contribute to "the common good." Even today socialists blame the US for NOT doing business with Cuba, as if it was some sort of sacred duty to trade with anyone indiscriminately, even vile criminals.

So it is not easy to separate out the effect of Allende's impact from that of US "economic warfare" because forced socialism IS a form of economic warfare and the negative effects of socialism ARE in large parts the victims fighting back or going on strike. That's really why capitalists are so hated by the socialists. Socialism depends on these able people, and unlike regular slaves who can be whipped to perform physical labor, it is impossible to force someone to perform mental labor.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdm-nixon/nsdm-93.pdf

 

[Random]

Here is the difference between us: YOU think that NOT helping someone who despises you and actively works to enslave you is sociopathy, whereas using physical force against innocent peaceful people and calling them names is NOT sociopathy. Only someone who abides by the inverted morality of altruism can possible think anything like that.

Like I said earlier, there's not been any serious physical threat against you. Whereas I assume that, due to your po-faced attitude, you are serious about refusing to help someone who insults you on the internet.

No idea what you're comment about altruism means.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

No idea what you're comment about altruism means.

It's straight out of Rand. Alruism is evil because it means "sacrificing" the individual, enslaving the self to others. Selfishness is the highest virtue.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I thought you would be. Your frequent allusions to Ayn Rand were an indication that you're a science fiction fan.

Presumably also a fan of mildly S&M bodice-rippers?

That's how Rand read to me anyway: "Dagny panted, face pressed against the ground, as the mysterious Aryan ubermencsh pulled her knickers aside with his dirty fingers and roughly penetrated her while expounding crank economic theories. "

 

[camouflage]

The new "Scramble for Africa" now takes the form of FTZeds apparently.

Come, invest, generate huge diseconomies like pollution, disenfranchisement and higher prices caused by the massive demands of this alien being, contributing absolutely nothing to the local society- not even jobs as you can ship in your own workers, and then fuck off with all the profits leaving the locals to eat the costs. The corrupt petro-archy government is easily bought and with a history of screwing it's people for a buck or two so there shouldn't be any problem. Welcome to Nigeria.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I like you camouflage.

 

[onarchy]

In the last few decades, the wealth from increased productivity has gone to the Top-hats, average wages have not gone up, in fact they've stayed the same. The credit market has gone up though.

In the United States this is partially true, but you have to remember that the US is no longer a free country, and that over the past 20 years most of the apparent economic growth in the country has been financed by consumer debt due to a corporatist centrally planned central banking system. The economic activity in the United States has been severely stifled by regulations and taxes. Regulations tend to particularly harm small businesses, because big business are big enough to handle the bureaucracy. That is why big business lobby in favor of industry regulations. It kills small competitors.

Regulations reduce the amount of competition and thereby widens the gap between the big and the small.

However, if you look over a longer period of time you clearly see that in fairly free economies there is a strong relationship between average productivity in that country and the wages.

 

[Random]

It's straight out of Rand. Alruism is evil because it means "sacrificing" the individual, enslaving the self to others. Selfishness is the highest virtue.

Oh, I see. And of course 'collectivism' and 'forced unity' are blood brothers.

 

[Idris2002]

On the contrary, the connection between Jews and capitalists were very well known among socialists some 100 years ago. Here is one of my favorite cartoons to prove my point:

It is a cartoon made in the 1920s by FRENCH SOCIALISTS. Let me translate it for you (I love this):

"The Jews hold 2/3 of the riches of the world!
For every 100 Jews: 80 capitalists.
For every 100,000 French: 1 capitalist."

The numbers aren't correct, but that's beside the point. The point is that socialists at the time BELIEVED this to be true and that they saw the Jew and the capitalist as one and the same animal. (a pig as it turned out, "Judenschwein" and "capitalist pig" are the same expression)

Which French Socialists were these? The ones who were led by the Jewish socialist Leon Blum, and whose deputies in 1940 voted against Petain's establishment of the Vichy regime?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Section_of_the_Workers'_International

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Blum

E2A: this is actually a very serious libel you've perpetrated in this post. You're honestly telling us that a French Socialist movement led by a Jewish intellectual who was at one point nearly beaten to death by right-wing conservative antisemites would itself have perpetrated antisemitic propaganda. I think you should retract this scandalous and disgusting allegation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're mistaking correlation with causation. Wages and conditions improve in countries, generally, as those countries' output increases because over that same period the workers have fought for those improvements. But in the last 40 years or so, wages and conditions for most workers in most of the industrialised West (not just the US) have not improved – the entire proceeds of growth have been swallowed up by the very richest. This has happened due to the removal of regulations – certain kinds of regulations, such as those that restrict the movement of money across borders – not their imposition.

Another question for you: Generally speaking, do high-tax countries or low-tax countries perform best economically? How do you explain the wealth of Scandinavian countries? What about Germany?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

In the United States this is partially true, but you have to remember that the US is no longer a free country, and that over the past 20 years most of the apparent economic growth in the country has been financed by consumer debt due to a corporatist centrally planned central banking system. The economic activity in the United States has been severely stifled by regulations and taxes. Regulations tend to particularly harm small businesses, because big business are big enough to handle the bureaucracy. That is why big business lobby in favor of industry regulations. It kills small competitors.

Regulations reduce the amount of competition and thereby widens the gap between the big and the small.

However, if you look over a longer period of time you clearly see that in fairly free economies there is a strong relationship between average productivity in that country and the wages.

Of course big buisnesses will fix the game to their own advantage, it's in their own rational self-interest to do so. They are also legally bound to maximise profits for their shareholders. They are able to do so because they have the money and power that make it possible. Anybody who tries to address this is denounced by you as a "fascist". And then you whinge when they inevitable fix the game.

 

[camouflage]

In the United States this is partially true, but you have to remember that the US is no longer a free country, and that over the past 20 years most of the apparent economic growth in the country has been financed by consumer debt due to a corporatist centrally planned central banking system. The economic activity in the United States has been severely stifled by regulations and taxes. Regulations tend to particularly harm small businesses, because big business are big enough to handle the bureaucracy. That is why big business lobby in favor of industry regulations. It kills small competitors.

Regulations reduce the amount of competition and thereby widens the gap between the big and the small.

However, if you look over a longer period of time you clearly see that in fairly free economies there is a strong relationship between average productivity in that country and the wages.

Yes, we've seen how over-regulation fucked up the banking industry and led to all sorts of problems.

Why is it that making companies pay for the commodified healthcare of their workers is seen as somehow good for the economy, whereas the government protecting the insurance and pharmaceuticals oligopolies as if it has read it in Chapter One of the book How to run a fascist state is seen as true to the spirit of free enterprise?

 

[Random]

E2A: this is actually a very serious libel you've perpetrated in this post. You're honestly telling us that a French Socialist movement led by a Jewish intellectual who was at one point nearly beaten to death by right-wing conservative antisemites would itself have perpetrated antisemitic propaganda. I think you should retract this scandalous and disgusting allegation.

Maybe he's just thinking of some other little French socialist group, not the main one. There's plenty of tiny splinters of socialism and some of them were probably judeophobic in post-Dreyfuss France.

 

[Idris2002]

Maybe he's just thinking of some other little French socialist group, not the main one. There's plenty of tiny splinters of socialism and some of them were probably judeophobic in post-Dreyfuss France.

That's probably it. But note that he tries to smear an entire movement with this brush. The little shit.

 

[nino_savatte]

Still no comment on the Congo Free State, onan?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

If we're talking about anti-semitism, lest we forget that there were none more fanatical in that regard than the modern hero of capitalist enthusiasts today, Henry Ford:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/ford1.html

 

[Random]

That's probably it. But note that he tries to smear an entire movement with this brush. The little shit.

He'll be stepping voer your stabbed carcass for saying that. He's rather fragile, you know.

 

[Blagsta]

The more time I spend on this forum the more information I get about your values in life and about your vision of how society should be.

Clearly your vision of what it means to be an adult is to behave disrespectfully to other people. People who reject that kind of a behavior are "babies" that can't handle your vision of "adult" life.

Furthermore, if you meet a stranger that for some reason disagree with you you have zero scruples about treating that person without a hint of benevolence.

In short, your vision of human life is a malevolent and violent one. This thread is after all called "the neoliberal vision of the future" and while I can't talk for these neoliberals whoever they are I can certainly speak for liberals: our visions of humanity and of the future is one of 100% peaceful relations and where people are benevolent and tolerant towards peaceful individuals, even though they are complete strangers. And because I fight for a world like that socialists call me a "cry baby" and ask me to "grow up" to become just as mean brutes as themselves. Well, if expecting to being treated with equality and some barebone respect and decency makes me a cry baby, well, then I prefer to be a cry baby.

Your vision of the future seems to be one where freedom only exists for those with property, and where if anyone challenges this, they're ignored or insulted (or murdered).

 

[Blagsta]

The fact that you equate humans with land is very illuminating of your twisted views. No wonder you can justify mass murder.

It's amazing the moral gymnastics right wing "libertarians" have to go through to justify their politics. I come across their distortions of history, twisting of words and downright lies over and over again when attempting debate with these loons. Anti-human, the lot of 'em.

 

[Blagsta]

You think that land ownership is as natural as existing? Then why do so few people own land?

Worse than that, he's equating land and people. How fucked up is that?

 

[Blagsta]

Here is the difference between us: YOU think that NOT helping someone who despises you and actively works to enslave you is sociopathy, whereas using physical force against innocent peaceful people and calling them names is NOT sociopathy. Only someone who abides by the inverted morality of altruism can possible think anything like that.

who has used physical force on you?

 

[Blagsta]

It's straight out of Rand. Alruism is evil because it means "sacrificing" the individual, enslaving the self to others. Selfishness is the highest virtue.

The childish individualism of Rand and her followers is piss easy to demolish.

 

[audiotech]

I don't know all the details of the Free Trade Zone, but from what I could tell this bodes very, very well for Africa.

Nine communities were under threat to be destroyed and the people displaced.

It would appear that an "agreement" has since been made between the people and the state to "protect" these communities and "promises" have also been made to give them a 'stake in the future of the free trade zone'.

Now, what's the odds that these "agreements", "promises" and 'stake holdings' will be kept do you think?

No glib answers now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The childish individualism of Rand and her followers is piss easy to demolish.

I've not read any Rand, nor do I ever intend to, but is this thing here really an accurate representation of her ideas? It's not just nasty, it is incoherent and ahistorical. It's complete nonsense.

 

[Steel Icarus]

I've not read any Rand, nor do I ever intend to, but is this thing here really an accurate representation of her ideas? It's not just nasty, it is incoherent and ahistorical. It's complete nonsense.

There's loads of them on Twitter & on the Rally against banning circle-jerks or whatever it is. Some cunt known as Old Holborn (a grown man who dresses up as V from Vendetta) today called anonymity the greatest right of the Libertarian. I mean, fer crying out loud.

 

[Idris2002]

Here's a nice cartoon.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The fact that you equate humans with land is very illuminating of your twisted views. No wonder you can justify mass murder.

It's amazing the moral gymnastics right wing "libertarians" have to go through to justify their politics. I come across their distortions of history, twisting of words and downright lies over and over again when attempting debate with these loons. Anti-human, the lot of 'em.

Rather than treating property ownership and bodily integrity as homologous, as onan has done, surely it would be more fruitful to explore how they differ. What is special about the human body? If you cut it, it will bleed, if it doesn't have access to certain material resources like water, food, shelter, medicines etc, it will experience physical pain. Assaults to the dignity of the human body result in emotional suffering. Property cannot feel pain and suffering. If ownership of property is necessary for a dignified human existence, the way we understand the nature of that ownership must be circumcribed by our understanding of what is necessary for such an existence. How can absolute ownership of material resources to the exclusion of all others be justified when that deprives others of the fundamental necessities for a meaningful life? This Lockean crap about "the mixing of one's labour with the resource" just doesn't cut it, particularly given that workers are sytematically exploited for their labour power and alienated from its outcomes.