2008 American Presidential Election

[Ruby]

So although, for example, China has excellent trade and political relations with multiple world-power Capitalist countries, it's still our fault for their faults? Come on. It's the improper balance of power created by Communism that makes it unstable, not external disputes. You can't give a single organization power over most/all industry and expect it not to be corrupt.

It depends which faults you're referring to. I was rather referring to the total collapse of communist nations not the faults of strange transitional economies.

Edit: I'm going to bed now but I'll probably continue this debate tomorrow. In general I am arguing that the Cold War was the main reason for the failure of the communism. In response to what you have said about laissez-faire I say that private companies' ultimate objective is to make money. I do not accept that the amount of money a company makes reflects the quality of a company's service. I say therefore that private companies are prone to conflict of interest when they are put in charge of matters such as healthcare.

Second edit: I chose "Other or none (post a reply if voting this way)" because the question isn't very clear. But if I were an American citizen I should probably vote for Obama.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Yeah looking back at my post it was p. retarded, sorry. But you have to admit people in Communist countries often have really hard lives, often have insufficient food and are generally pretty miserable.

 

[Ruby]

Yeah looking back at my post it was p. retarded, sorry. But you have to admit people in Communist countries often have really hard lives, often have insufficient food and are generally pretty miserable.

Strangy, you know more about politics than I do; I don't find your posts retarded but I must say that most people in this capitalist world of ours often have insufficient food and awfully difficult and miserable lives.

 

[The Quicker Picker-Upper]

but I must say that most people in this capitalist world of ours often have insufficient food and awfully difficult and miserable lives.

Only in Third-World countries. They often can't help it, though, regardless of what economic system they use. Geographic isolation, a lack of resources, and internal strife causes economic development to become limited if not impossible.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Pretty much nothing to add to what the Quicker said, even though there is a lot of poverty in countries considered First-World too, of course. Like the ring of 'citées' around Paris.

Ahaha, I certainly don't know more than you about politics :)

 

[The Quicker Picker-Upper]

12.7 percent of the (as an example, since some people seem to think the West=US) American population is in poverty.


Relatively, that's pretty damn good.

In fact, go ahead and read the entire article on poverty. It's from the same ol' Wikipedia you used, so don't tell me it's inaccurate. :)

 

[Ruby]

Only in Third-World countries. They often can't help it, though, regardless of what economic system they use. Geographic isolation, a lack of resources, and internal strife causes economic development to become limited if not impossible.

First, even if one ignores what ... has said, it is absurdly euphemistic to use the word "only" in the sentence, "Only in Third-World countries." Indeed only half of the human race was living on only $2 or less a day in the year 2001. The "third-world" is not a mere anomaly although it is easy to think so when one is not part of it. Second I do not agree with your reasons for the existence of poverty:

Geographic isolation

If that is so, isn't it rather a problem that capitalism generates poverty in geographically isolated countries?

a lack of resources

Africa, the poorest continent, has a superabundance of raw materials in comparison to the wealthiest parts of the world such as Western Europe and Japan. The natural resources of a country no longer determine a country's wealth. For instance, diamond production in Angola and the DRC.

internal strife causes economic development to become limited if not impossible.

I believe that strife is a result of poverty and not that poverty is a result of strife.

In my opinion poverty is caused in the main by the systematic extraction of wealth from non-Western countries by Western countries. Today the tools of that extraction are perpetual debt, inequitable trade agreements, and client states.

12.7 percent of the (as an example, since some people seem to think the West=US) American population is in poverty.

Relatively, that's pretty damn good.

But relative to what? The wealth of one capitalist nation relative to another capitalist nation reveals little about capitalism as a whole other than capitalism's own disparities.

 

[The Quicker Picker-Upper]

First, even if one ignores what ... has said, it is absurdly euphemistic to use the word "only" in the sentence, "Only in Third-World countries." Indeed only half of the human race was living on only $2 or less a day in the year 2001. The "third-world" is not a mere anomaly although it is to think it so when one is not part of it.

Third-world=economically underdeveloped
If anything, what I said was redundant. I can see how half the human race is dirt poor, since third world countries are all over the place and there will always be some poor in even the best of countries.

Isn't it rather an indictment that under capitalism geographically isolated countries have no choice but to suffer poverty?

Under Capitalism? Name one incredably well-off island nation, Capitalist or not.

Africa, the poorest continent, has a superabundance of raw materials in comparison to the wealthiest parts of the world such as Western Europe and Japan. The natural resources of a country no longer determine that country's wealth. For instance, diamond production in Angola and the DRC.

It's just one of many reasons for economic weakness. I never said that countries with lots of resources would always be well-off. Mongolia is a perfect example of a country unable to develop properly due to a lack of resources.

I believe that strife is a result of poverty not a cause.

Ever heard of a vicious cycle? XD
It's both a result and a cause. The Roman Empire had lotsa internal strife, and it was the most well-off country of it's day, so don't tell me poverty is the only cause of it.

In my opinion poverty is caused in the main by the systematic extraction of wealth from non-Western countries by Western countries. Today the tools of that extraction are perpetual debt, inequitable trade agreements, and client states.

Uh, hate to disappoint, but Westren countries aren't out to take over the world. Imperialism is dying out. Hong Kong is once again part of China, the Americas are no longer under British/French/Spainish/Portuguese control, and most countries in Africa have become...well, countries on their own. India is it's own country now, as well as most Eastren Europeon countries.

But relative to what? The wealth of one capitalist nation relative to another capitalist nation reveals little about capitalism as a whole other than capitalism's own disparities.

Relative to all countries, and I hope you're not saying all countries are Capitalist. Did you not click on the links?

EDIT: Back and forth we go! :D

 

[Ruby]

I concede that lack of natural resources and geographical isolation are factors which have a large effect on a small number of nations: namely, islands and those nations similar to Mongolia.

Uh, hate to disappoint, but Westren countries aren't out to take over the world. Imperialism is dying out. Hong Kong is once again part of China, the Americas are no longer under British/French/Spainish/Portuguese control, and most countries in Africa have become...well, countries on their own. India is it's own country now, as well as most Eastren Europeon countries.

That is the heart of our disagreement. I think you have a limited understanding of imperialism. Most countries now have nominal political independence; that is, citizens choose their own Heads of State and so on. In practice, however, the world is the colonial possession of the West and China. Independence is twofold: political and economic. Most countries that have been given political independence, such as Ghana and Bangladesh, have yet to be given economic independence. Ghanaians can choose their President but he cannot do anything that the West and China dislike. Political independence without economic independence is a triviality designed to assure the naïve that the West is benign. It is the most insidious form of imperialism and it exists because extremely powerful lobbies have a vested financial interest in poverty.

 

[Kabigon]

Err, you guys are making me feel like crap now. Too much of you city folk fancy talk. Well I'm voting for Obama. I mean McCain and Obama would both suck but at least Obama wouldn't suck as bad as McCain.

 

[The Quicker Picker-Upper]

By an extension of your logic, there shouldn't be any poverty in 1st world countries because it is only in 3rd world countries.

Getting a bit sick o' arguing, but this interpretation bothers me. I meant that the poor make up the majority in third world countries. There's poverty everywhere.

You're telling me 13% is good?

Yep. It really is. If you want better, too bad. Utopias don't exist.

 

[Ruby]

Stryke, everyone knows we're really just lifting whole chunks of text verbatim from books of political theory. For instance,

If I argue, everyone that disagrees with me (most people) will team up on me and make me look like a total ass...

 

[ethereal_joe]

If I could vote, I'd probably choose an independent canidate. Or, I'd do a write-in canidate.

 

[The Quicker Picker-Upper]

my Republican friends insisting that Iraq and Vietnam are successes

Oh my. XD
I think Iraq was a success in that we've done what we needed to. We captured Saddam, we reformed the goverment, so we've pretty much won a while back. There's still insane amounts of internal strife, but it's probably going to be permanent no matter what we do/don't do. However, calling Vietnam a success is just plain foolish.

The US is #16 on the Poverty Index. Clearly there must be countries that are lower than it, and therefore have less poverty. It's not a question of utopia, it's a question of 'We can do better than that'.

We can do better, but everyone has a different idea on how we should. That's why politicians debate nonstop for years before actually doing anything.

It's been fun debating with ya.

Thank you. I enjoyed debating with you too (along with quite a few other peoples of the Internet), no matter how much I sucked at it.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith

I'm being compared to a (imo) brilliant Scottish economist? Why, thank you! :D

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

I think Iraq was a success

No, Iraq was and will never be a 'success' since they didn't even ask for help in the first place and Bush noticed he was running low on petrol. Iraq has been a failure on every possible point of view and a huge, unnecessary cost, in lives and money. And you've been there for five years man come on, it's fucking ridiculous.

Plus now everyone in Iraq hates America so now you do have a problem.

 

[The Quicker Picker-Upper]

No, Iraq was and will never be a 'success' since they didn't even ask for help in the first place and Bush noticed he was running low on petrol. Iraq has been a failure on every possible point of view and a huge, unnecessary cost, in lives and money. And you've been there for five years man come on, it's fucking ridiculous.

Plus now everyone in Iraq hates America so now you do have a problem.

Gah, I keep wording things poorly.
I didn't mean it a good thing we got into it, I didn't mean it was success to the rest of the world, and I didn't mean anything else other than that it was a success in that the US already done what it originally meant to do. Saddam was defeated and the goverment we wanted to put it place was put in place. That war has already been won. Whatever the hell we're doing now is not same war.

To sum it up, Iraq was defeated, Saddam was overthrown, and therefore we won. What we meant to do we did, and now we're piddling around losing money/lives/our international reputation.

 

[Belmont]

Meh i'd go with Obama even though im not American

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

One hand you got a war-mongerer,

but i thought you liked wars make up your mind.

and just admit you don't want to vote for the brown one with the muslim name :|

 

[Crazy Weavile]

I prefer McCain simply because there ALWAYS this talk about "change" that never amounts to anything before every election. Ergo, I prefer the person who doesn't reuse the standard campaign, and thus might actually accomplish a bit more than the many presidents we've had who really didn't do much of anything special.

 

[Ruby]

I prefer McCain simply because there ALWAYS this talk about "change" that never amounts to anything before every election. Ergo, I prefer the person who doesn't reuse the standard campaign, and thus might actually accomplish a bit more than the many presidents we've had who really didn't do much of anything special.

You blindly support anyone who isn't vague?