Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
North Korea a Nuke Nation...
JackN
<font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
in Zocalo v2.0
[QUOTE][b]North Korea says it has nuclear weapons
Pyongyang also announces withdrawal from six-nation talks
___________________________
North Korea pulling out of talks[/b]
(CNN) -- Citing what it calls U.S. threats to topple its political system, North Korea said it is dropping out of six-party nuclear talks and will "bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal," the country's official news agency KCNA said Thursday.
The report was North Korea's first public admission that it possessed nuclear weapons.
Pyongyang previously has asserted its ability and right to produce them. In April 2003, U.S. officials said that North Koreans claimed in private meetings they had at least one nuclear bomb.
On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on North Korea to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the talks or risk further isolation.
Rice said the North Koreans, by leaving negotiations, would be "deepening their isolation because everyone in the international community, and most especially North Korea's neighbors, have been very clear that there needs to be no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula in order to maintain stability in that region." (Full story)
In the statement reported by KCNA, the North Korean Foreign Ministry said: "We have shown utmost magnanimity and patience for the past four years since the first Bush administration swore in.
"We cannot spend another four years as we did in the past four years, and there is no need for us to repeat what we did in those years."
U.S. diplomats have said that North Korea has used similar language when stepping aside from anti-nuclear proliferation talks in the past, although it is the first time that Pyongyang has been so explicit about its development of nuclear weapons.
The Foreign Ministry statement said North Korea's "stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged."
Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks aimed at persuading the North to abandon its nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards.
But no significant progress was reported in those talks, all hosted by China, North Korea's last remaining major ally.
A fourth round of talks in September did not take place when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy.
Thursday's statement from the North Korean Foreign Ministry said nuclear weapons are "for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle" its government.
The communist state said it felt "compelled to suspend" participation in the six-nation talks "for an indefinite period."
"We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks," the Foreign Ministry said.
"The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick. This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in the DPRK."
The United States has opposed North Korea's demands that it hold one-to-one nuclear talks, saying a multilateral diplomatic approach is required.
Some observers in Washington say Pyongyang may be posturing for a more preferable negotiating position in light of recent developments regarding the suspected nuclear program in Iran.
International leaders expressed disappointment at Thursday's announcement.
Russia's Foreign Ministry said it "regrets" North Korea's decision. In a statement on the ministry's Web site, spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said Moscow is "carefully studying" the announcement and added, "For us it can only cause regret ... to our mind, this attitude contradicts Pyongyang's declared striving for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
"Despite the firmness of the statement by the North Korean Foreign Ministry," Yakovenko said, "Russia still hopes for the soonest possible resumption of the six-nation negotiations and compromises in settling problems with due consideration of the interests of all sides."
Bush tones down 'axis of evil' rhetoric
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said North Korea could be brought back to the negotiating table. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed, saying, "It would be a major mistake by [North Korea] were they to go down this route."
In his inaugural address last month, President Bush did not mention North Korea by name. But he said U.S. efforts have lit "a fire in the minds of men."
"It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world," he said.
In his February 2 State of the Union address, Bush only briefly mentioned North Korea, saying Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."
Bush's tone was in stark contrast to his speech three years ago when he branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" that included Iran and Iraq. This year's address raised hopes for a positive response from North Korea.
Earlier this month, Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun agreed to push for an early resumption of the six-nation talks.
But Pyongyang said Bush's call for the spread of freedom in his inaugural speech was a diabolical scheme to turn the world into "a sea of war flames."
"In his inauguration speech, Bush trumpeted that 'fire of freedom will reach dark corners of the world.' This is nothing but a plot to engulf the whole world in a sea of war flames and rule it by imposing a freedom based on power," North Korea's state-run Pyongyang Radio said this month.[/QUOTE]
Pyongyang also announces withdrawal from six-nation talks
___________________________
North Korea pulling out of talks[/b]
(CNN) -- Citing what it calls U.S. threats to topple its political system, North Korea said it is dropping out of six-party nuclear talks and will "bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal," the country's official news agency KCNA said Thursday.
The report was North Korea's first public admission that it possessed nuclear weapons.
Pyongyang previously has asserted its ability and right to produce them. In April 2003, U.S. officials said that North Koreans claimed in private meetings they had at least one nuclear bomb.
On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on North Korea to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the talks or risk further isolation.
Rice said the North Koreans, by leaving negotiations, would be "deepening their isolation because everyone in the international community, and most especially North Korea's neighbors, have been very clear that there needs to be no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula in order to maintain stability in that region." (Full story)
In the statement reported by KCNA, the North Korean Foreign Ministry said: "We have shown utmost magnanimity and patience for the past four years since the first Bush administration swore in.
"We cannot spend another four years as we did in the past four years, and there is no need for us to repeat what we did in those years."
U.S. diplomats have said that North Korea has used similar language when stepping aside from anti-nuclear proliferation talks in the past, although it is the first time that Pyongyang has been so explicit about its development of nuclear weapons.
The Foreign Ministry statement said North Korea's "stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged."
Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks aimed at persuading the North to abandon its nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards.
But no significant progress was reported in those talks, all hosted by China, North Korea's last remaining major ally.
A fourth round of talks in September did not take place when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a "hostile" U.S. policy.
Thursday's statement from the North Korean Foreign Ministry said nuclear weapons are "for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle" its government.
The communist state said it felt "compelled to suspend" participation in the six-nation talks "for an indefinite period."
"We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks," the Foreign Ministry said.
"The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick. This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by the people in the DPRK."
The United States has opposed North Korea's demands that it hold one-to-one nuclear talks, saying a multilateral diplomatic approach is required.
Some observers in Washington say Pyongyang may be posturing for a more preferable negotiating position in light of recent developments regarding the suspected nuclear program in Iran.
International leaders expressed disappointment at Thursday's announcement.
Russia's Foreign Ministry said it "regrets" North Korea's decision. In a statement on the ministry's Web site, spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said Moscow is "carefully studying" the announcement and added, "For us it can only cause regret ... to our mind, this attitude contradicts Pyongyang's declared striving for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
"Despite the firmness of the statement by the North Korean Foreign Ministry," Yakovenko said, "Russia still hopes for the soonest possible resumption of the six-nation negotiations and compromises in settling problems with due consideration of the interests of all sides."
Bush tones down 'axis of evil' rhetoric
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said North Korea could be brought back to the negotiating table. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw agreed, saying, "It would be a major mistake by [North Korea] were they to go down this route."
In his inaugural address last month, President Bush did not mention North Korea by name. But he said U.S. efforts have lit "a fire in the minds of men."
"It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world," he said.
In his February 2 State of the Union address, Bush only briefly mentioned North Korea, saying Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions."
Bush's tone was in stark contrast to his speech three years ago when he branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" that included Iran and Iraq. This year's address raised hopes for a positive response from North Korea.
Earlier this month, Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun agreed to push for an early resumption of the six-nation talks.
But Pyongyang said Bush's call for the spread of freedom in his inaugural speech was a diabolical scheme to turn the world into "a sea of war flames."
"In his inauguration speech, Bush trumpeted that 'fire of freedom will reach dark corners of the world.' This is nothing but a plot to engulf the whole world in a sea of war flames and rule it by imposing a freedom based on power," North Korea's state-run Pyongyang Radio said this month.[/QUOTE]
Comments
And I mind you, the US has ALOT more nukes then N.K.
Kim... with what ammount to a nuclear pair of socks in his undies and a skoolhouse hitler...(notice the little 'h'.)
they both need a good spanking, like their mother used to... or maybe thats the problem... too much BDSM...
sigh....
[B]Im more worried about [URL=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050210/ap_on_hi_te/tracking_students]this[/URL] . [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is that claimed freedom spreaded by certain self-proclaimed leader of the free world.
And that freedom means ruling rich elite having right to rob others.
[url]http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations.asp[/url]
[i]According to new figures compiled by Forbes magazine, the 497 richest people on earth come from 43 countries, led by the United States with 216, Germany with 35, and Japan with 25.
Still, the 497 billionaires registered a healthy combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion).
Indeed, this collective wealth of the 497 is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity.[/i]
[b]The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.[/b]
[i]An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
3 to 1 in 1820
11 to 1 in 1913
35 to 1 in 1950
44 to 1 in 1973
72 to 1 in 1992[/i]
[i]While the sales of the Top 200 corporations are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world's workforce.[/i]
[i]Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.[/i]
[i]Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corporate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation - General Motors.[/i]
[url]http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/05/31/enslaved-by-free-trade/[/url]
[url]http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/08/19/stealing-nations/[/url]
[url]http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/09/08/universal-fair-trade/[/url]
So in the end this "free" market economy/capitalism/globalization is just politically correct name for organized robbery.
It's nothing more than new version of imperialism&colonialism.
And literally accordance with ideology of Shadows.
"It is yet another Civilized Power, with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other."
— Mark Twain, To the Person Sitting in Darkness, 1901, describing the United States playing the European-style imperialist game in the Philippines
what really bugs me is i was walking down the street the other day when a CND campaigner tried to get me to sign some petition or something. I just looked at them and said 'yes i'd be more than happy to do away with nuclear weapons, but not before north korea does. you do that and i'll sign your *******petition'
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]In his inaugural address last month, President Bush did not mention North Korea by name. But he said U.S. efforts have lit "a fire in the minds of men."
"It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world," he said.
[/B][/QUOTE]
This is what frightens me the most. I wonder what Corners (countries) he is talking about, as I dont think I would want the Bush administrations type of 'freedom'..
[B]
[i]According to new figures compiled by Forbes magazine, the 497 richest people on earth come from 43 countries, led by the United States with 216, Germany with 35, and Japan with 25.
Still, the 497 billionaires registered a healthy combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion).
Indeed, this collective wealth of the 497 is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity.[/i]
[b]The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.[/b]
[i]An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
3 to 1 in 1820
11 to 1 in 1913
35 to 1 in 1950
44 to 1 in 1973
72 to 1 in 1992[/i]
[i]While the sales of the Top 200 corporations are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world's workforce.[/i]
[i]Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.[/i]
[i]Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corporate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation - General Motors.[/i]
So in the end this "free" market economy/capitalism/globalization is just politically correct name for organized robbery.
It's nothing more than new version of imperialism&colonialism.
And literally accordance with ideology of Shadows.
"It is yet another Civilized Power, with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other."
— Mark Twain, To the Person Sitting in Darkness, 1901, describing the United States playing the European-style imperialist game in the Philippines [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok ET if you are feel these practices are damaging society, what would you suggest as an alternative to free-markets and globalization? How would drive the world economy? How would you create and distribute wealth?
An important point that the above excerpt seems to miss is that, with just a few exceptions, every Fortune 500 company is publicly held, meaning that people, just like you and me can purchase a share and receive the economic benefit of their activities. Take a look at some of the largest and most influence shareholders of these corporations. Often they are not rich, fat-cats, but mutual funds, investment portfolios that provide benefit to many, many smaller investors. One of the single largest of these funds --> CailPERS (California Public Employee Retirement System) which funds the retirements of almost all the states public employees, most of which are not rich, but "regular joes".
This does not even begin to cover the number of people that these corporations employ or the many more business that they spend money with. Look at it this way; most large corporations earn 8-12% profit. That means for every dollar earned, only 8 to 12 cents is being returned to the shareholders (the public mind you). The rest is spent on wages, materials and capital goods (buildings, equipment). Money spent on materials and capital goods goes to other companies whom have employees and purchase yet again more materials and capital goods.
Whether we are comfortable with the process or not, corporations are the most effective means by which wealth is redistributed. Because the market drives them, they must manage their resources in the most effective manner possible, lest the market will take those resources away. Is there waste and corruption? Absolutely, as there is in any human institution, but the fact that these businesses are responsible to the public at large has a significant effect on the level of waste.
Jake
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]This is what frightens me the most. I wonder what Corners (countries) he is talking about, as I dont think I would want the Bush administrations type of 'freedom'.. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have a simple question, would you rather have Kim Jong Il's form of 'freedom'?
Jake
[B]This does not even begin to cover the number of people that these corporations employ or the many more business that they spend money with. Look at it this way; most large corporations earn 8-12% profit. That means for every dollar earned, only 8 to 12 cents is being returned to the shareholders (the public mind you). The rest is spent on wages, materials and capital goods (buildings, equipment). Money spent on materials and capital goods goes to other companies whom have employees and purchase yet again more materials and capital goods.[/B][/QUOTE]
[Quote][i]Originally Posted By E.T.[/i]
[b]While the sales of the Top 200 corporations are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world's workforce.
Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.[/b][/Quote]
Did you even read the post?
[b]1) Regarding North Korea[/b]
In this case, countering proliferation has failed. Seems the right time to proliferate countermeasures. Unfortunately, technologies for downing a ballistic missile... are unreliable and few in number.
But they should certainly be developed further... since they may offer a way of stuffing this genie back into its bottle -- returning pressure where it belongs, on the North Korean government.
[b]2) Regarding RFID tracking of pupils[/b]
I sell RFID (indirectly, since I'm a programmer and not salesperson)... and when used properly, it can help keeping warehouse saldos neatly exact (I have reservations about its use on consumer goods, unless the technology in question effectively limits feasible tracking range)... but this is stupid.
If an institution insisted that I wear RFID all the time during everyday access to places which don't require special clearance... I would request the institution to justify why it wants me to wear a privacy and security risk (as opposed to using smartcard in security-related matters, and barcode for plain registration of things).
If the explanation wouldn't be good enough... I might tell the institution to take a flying fuck.
Even when the justification would be reasonable, and difficult to argue against... I would use a radio transponder only for intended purpose (open doors and such). At other times, it would sit safely in an EMI-safe wallet -- denying opportunity for needless tracking, opportunity to borrow my identity, or opportunity to for a colleague with ill humour to EMP my card.
In this case... I would ask them why they cannot use barcode (or magnetic cards) instead. Barcode can be 100x cheaper than RFID, magnetic cards are multiple times cheper, and neither is a privacy risk. Magnetic cards are difficult enough for kids to copy (and ultimately, a teacher should know his/her pupils -- noticing when someone skips lessons).
[b]3) Regarding economics[/b]
Money is a difficult-to-replace medium of exchange... but capitalism can be regulated.
Actually, to some extent, it must be regulated... because money has an inherent tendency to gravitate together into big lumps.
[B]Did you even read the post? [/B][/QUOTE]
I did read the post, and I understand the implication, but it is an incorrect assumption. The economic effects of dollars that are spent are much more significant than just the people directly employed by the firm.
Take for example a power tool sold in the US, but manufactured in Taiwan. That tool helps pay for a large number salaries, not just those employed at the seller. Working backward from the sale, it helps pay for the employee at the retailer, then those how unload, inspect and ship the product to the retailer. The tool itself is made by a third part manufacturer how employs 30-40 people in the assembly process, the individual parts are made by secondary manufacturers, many of whom are small individual shops that maybe employ 10 people. The raw materials, machinery and supplies are purchased from an untold number of manufacturers, some very large corporation (such as would be the case in the aluminum used in the tool) to sole proprietors (small business that runs the parts from the shop to the manufacturing facility). To say that these large corporations control 28% of the economy, but only hire 1% of the population is intentionally misleading. There are an uncountable number of firms that support these companies and the vendors that supply these companies.
My biggest beef with the message was that corporations are the main cause of the economic gap. I'm not going to kid myself into the belief that corporations are always great public citizens, but I cannot think of a more effective method to distribute wealth. If someone has an idea of a method that would be as efficient, please let me know.
Jake
There's nothing bad in those either.
Actually, smaller companies are frequently (if not generally) more adaptive than a big ones. The latter have complex hierarchies, frequently capable of losing vital information on its way. In a small company, if there's a problem... one generally hears about it.
But some ventures... due to our severely limited abilities... simply require big organizations, *lots* of people to accomplish.
In this regard... one thing is should be looked out for. Unregulated capitalism can, often via increasingly big companies... create anti-competitive market situations. Society should ensure that there is no *inherent* benefit in being big. Companies should grow big only if this permits achieving higher efficiency.
But anyway... some downsides of multinational corporations (those which misbehave)... *can* be addressed, if trade unions likewise go multinational.
[quote]Free trade formed the basis of free enterprise for capitalists and up until the Great Depression of the 1930s was the primary economic theory followed in the United States and Britain. But from a global perspective, this free trade was accompanied by geopolitics making it look more like mercantilism. For both these nations (as well as others) to succeeded and remain competitive in the international arena, they had a strong foundation of imperialism, colonialism and subjugation of others in order to have access to the resources required to produce such vast wealth. As J.W. Smith notes above, this was hardly the free trade that Adam Smith suggested and it seemed like a continuation of mercantilist policies.
...
Because of the Great Depression in the 1930s, an economist, John Maynard Keynes, suggested that regulation and government intervention was actually needed in order to provide more equity in development. This led to the “Keynesian” model of development and after World War II formed the foundation for the rebuilding of the U.S-European-centered international economic system. The Marshall Plan for Europe helped reconstruct it and the European nations saw the benefits of social provisions such as health, education and so on, as did the U.S. under President Roosevelt's New Deal.
[i]In 1945 or 1950, if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage at or sent off to the insane asylum. At least in the Western countries, at that time, everyone was a Keynesian, a social democrat or a social-Christian democrat or some shade of Marxist. The idea that the market should be allowed to make major social and political decisions; the idea that the State should voluntarily reduce its role in the economy, or that corporations should be given total freedom, that trade unions should be curbed and citizens given much less rather than more social protection--such ideas were utterly foreign to the spirit of the time.[/i]
However, as elites and corporations saw their profits diminish with this equalizing effect, economic liberalism was revived, hence the term “neoliberalism”. Except, that this new form was not just limited to national boundaries, but instead was to apply to international economics as well. Starting from the University of Chicago with the philosopher-economist Friedrich von Hayek and his students such as Milton Friedman, the ideology of neoliberalism was pushed very thoroughly around the world.
Even before this though, there were indications that the world economic order was headed this way: the majority of wars throughout history have had economics, trade and resources at their core. The want for access to cheap resources to continue creating vast wealth and power allowed the imperial empires to justify military action, imperialism and colonialism in the name of “national interests”, “national security”, “humanitarian” intervention and so on.
...
As European and American economies grew, they needed to continue expansion to maintain the high standards of living that some elites were attaining in those days. This required holding on to, and expanding colonial territories in order to gain further access to the raw materials and resources, as well exploiting cheap labor. Those who resisted were often met with brutal repression or military interventions. This is not a controversial perception. Even U.S. President Woodrow Wilson recognized this in the early part of the 20th century:
[i]Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.[/i]
[i]The Great Global Depression of 1873 that lasted essentially until 1895 was the first great manifestation of the capitalist business crisis. The depression was not the first economic crisis [as there had been many for thousands of years] but the financial collapse of 1873 revealed the degree of global economic integration, and how economic events in one part of the globe could reverberate in others. ...
The Depression of 1873 revealed another big problem with capitalist expansion and perpetual growth: it can continue only as long as there is a ready supply of raw materials and an increasing demand for goods, along with ways to invest profits and capital. Given this situation, if you were an American or European investor in 1873, where would you look for economic expansion?
The obvious answer was to expand European and American power overseas, particularly into areas that remained relatively untouched by capitalist expansion -- Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Colonialism had become, in fact, a recognized solution to the need to expand markets, increase opportunities for investors, and ensure the supply of raw material. Cecil Rhodes, one of the great figures of England's colonization of Africa, recognized the importance of overseas expansion for maintaining peace at home.
...
As a result of this cry for imperialist expansion, people all over the world were converted into producers of export crops as millions of subsistence farmers were forced to become wage laborers producing for the market and required to purchase from European and American merchants and industrialists, rather than supply for themselves, their basic needs.[/i]
World War I was, in effect, a resource war as Imperial centers battled over themselves for control of the rest of the world. World War II was another such battle, perhaps the ultimate one. However, the former imperial nations realized that to fight like this is not the way, and became more cooperative instead.
Unfortunately, that cooperation was not for all the world's interests primarily, but their own. The Soviet attempt of an independent path to development (flawed that it was, because of its centralized, paranoid and totalitarian perspectives), was a threat to these centers of capital because their own colonies might “get the wrong idea” and also try for an independent path to their development.
Because World War II left the empires weak, the colonized countries started to break free. In some places, where countries had the potential to bring more democratic processes into place and maybe even provide an example for their neighbors to follow it threatened multinational corporations and their imperial (or former imperial) states (for example, by reducing access to cheap resources). As a result, their influence, power and control was also threatened. Often then, military actions were sanctioned. To the home populations, the fear of communism was touted, even if it was not the case, in order to gain support.
The net effect was that everyone fell into line, as if it were, allowing a form of globalization that suited the big businesses and elite classes mainly of the former imperial powers. (Hence, there is no surprise that some of the main World War II rivals, USA, Germany and Japan as well as other European nations are so prosperous, while the former colonial countries are still so poor; the economic booms of those wealthy nations have been at the expense of most people around the world.) Thus, to ensure this unequal success, power, and advantage globalization was backed up with military might (and still is).
Hence, even with what seemed like the end of imperialism and colonialism at the end of World War II, and the promotion of Adam Smith free trade and free markets, mercantilist policies still continued. (Adam Smith exposed the previous system as mercantilist and unjust. He then proposed free market capitalism as the alternative. Yet, a reading of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations would reveal that today is a far cry from the free market capitalism he suggested, and instead could still be considered monopoly capitalism, or the age-old mercantilism that he had exposed! And so, a belief system had to accompany the political objectives:
[i]When the blatant injustices of mercantilist imperialism became too embarrassing, a belief system was imposed that mercantilism had been abandoned and true free trade was in place. In reality the same wealth confiscation went on, deeply buried within complex systems of monopolies and unequal trade hiding under the cover of free trade. Many explanations were given for wars between the imperial nations when there was really one common thread: “Who will control resources and trade and the wealth produced through inequalities in trade?” All this is proven by the inequalities of trade siphoning the world's wealth to imperial centers of capital today just as they did when the secret of plunder by trade was learned centuries ago. The battles over the world's wealth have only kept hiding behind different belief systems each time the secrets of laying claim to the wealth of others' have been exposed.
— J.W. Smith, Economic Democracy; The Political Struggle for the 21st Century, (M.E. Sharpe, 2000) p.126[/i]
Going Global
The Reagan and Thatcher era in particular, saw neoliberalism pushed to most parts of the globe, almost demonizing anything that was public, and encouraging the privatization of anything that was owned by the public, using military interventions if needed. Structural Adjustment policies were used to open up economies of poorer countries so that big businesses from the rich countries could own or access many resources cheaply.
[i]So, from a small, unpopular sect with virtually no influence, neo-liberalism has become the major world religion with its dogmatic doctrine, its priesthood, its law-giving institutions and perhaps most important of all, its hell for heathen and sinners who dare to contest the revealed truth. Oskar Lafontaine, the ex-German Finance Minister who the Financial Times called an "unreconstructed Keynesian" has just been consigned to that hell because he dared to propose higher taxes on corporations and tax cuts for ordinary and less well-off families.[/i][/quote]
And is this how those with lot of wealth and power carry their responsibility?
[url]http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/09/28/expose-the-tax-cheats/[/url]
[url]http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/ns09222004.cfm[/url]
[url=http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Corporations/Evasion.asp]Evasion of Responsibilities and Dues[/url]
[quote]As various corporations improve their profits and become increasingly wealthy and powerful, the owners and leaders naturally wish to ensure ways to protect and continue the systems that have given them these possibilities. Throughout history, powerplay and politics has resulted in the elite of the time to institute policies that will allow them to benefit. Often, it won't benefit the majority and if it does, it is only because it doesn't impact the elite negatively. Trade wars, cold wars and hot wars have resulted over acquisition of wealth and resources and the maintenance of the hegemonic structures. The Cold War, for example, was partly about maintaining old centers of capital against other rising centers. World War I and II were also wars between imperial powers over wealth and resources.
...
Corporations and corporate-funded think tanks, media and other institutions are often the ones that loudly cry at the shame of welfare and the sin of living off the government and how various social programs should be but back due to their costs. (Usually the poorest of the poor are recipients of some sort of government assistance, if it exists at all. It is usually not enough for most people. In developing countries, for example, harsh IMF, World Bank-imposed structural adjustment policies mean even more cut backs on public expenditure, where the poor get his the hardest.) What is less known though is the amount of welfare that corporations receive. It is more than what citizens receive.
Corporate welfare is the break that corporations get both legally and illegally through things like subsidies, government (i.e. public) bailouts, tax incentives and so on. Corporations can influence various governments to foster a more favorable environment for them to invest in. Often, under the threat of moving elsewhere, poorer countries are forced to lower or even nearly eliminate certain corporate taxes to these large foreign investors. (This does not help lead to the level playing field that pro corporate-globalization advocates claim.)
...
When we talk about crime, we think of the violations of law caused by individuals, some of which are horrendous. However, almost rarely talked about (especially in corporate-owned media) is the level of crime caused by corporations. Such crime includes evasion of taxes, fraud, ignoring environmental regulations, violating labor rights, supporting military and other oppressive regimes to prevent dissent from workers, including violent crime against workers, and so on.
In the US, for example, one professor estimates that corporate crime costs the country about $200 billion a year.
Through offshore tax havens and fraud, and through transfer pricing, billions of dollars go untaxed. Estimates range from $50 billion to $200 billion of revenue losses. Oxfam for example, in a report on tax havens, makes a "conservative estimate, [that] tax havens have contributed to revenue losses for developing countries of at least US$50 billion a year. To put this figure in context, it is roughly equivalent to annual aid flows to developing countries." And they stress that this is a conservative estimate as it "does not take into account outright tax evasion, corporate practices such as transfer pricing, or the use of havens to under-report profit."
...
While Smith wrote the above in 1994, it is applicable today as well, with the recent wave of news about "corporate crime" and fascination of some CEOs and other executives as some major American companies have faced bankruptcy or have collapsed. Yet, the media, while offering an outpouring of news and analysis have by and large concentrated on individual characters and looked for scapegoats (CEOs being the current flavor!). The impacts of the underlying system itself has been less discussed and when it has, often been described as basically ok, but just affected by a few "bad apples". As media critic Norman Solomon describes,
[i][b]On the surface, media outlets are filled with condemnations of avarice. The July 15 edition of Newsweek features a story headlined "Going After Greed," complete with a full-page picture of George W. Bush's anguished face. But after multibillion-dollar debacles from Enron to WorldCom, the usual media messages are actually quite equivocal -- wailing about greedy CEOs while piping in a kind of hallelujah chorus to affirm the sanctity of the economic system that empowered them.
...Corporate theology about "the free enterprise system" readily acknowledges bad apples while steadfastly denying that the barrels are rotten. ... ("Let's hold people responsible -- not institutions," a recent Wall Street Journal column urged.)
...Basic questions about wealth and poverty -- about economic relations that are glorious for a few, adequate for some and injurious for countless others -- remain outside the professional focus of American journalism. In our society, prevalent inequities are largely the results of corporate function, not corporate dysfunction. But we're encouraged to believe that faith in the current system of corporate capitalism will be redemptive.[/b]
— Norman Solomon, Renouncing Sins Against the Corporate Faith, Media Beat, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, July 11, 2002[/i][/quote]
[i]We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality ... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.
— George Kennan, , US Cold War planner, 1948[/i]
[url=http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/WE/jun00Matrix.shtml]Escaping the Matrix[/url]
[quote]Globalization is centralized tyranny; capitalism has outlasted its sell-by date; matrix "democracy" is elite rule; and "market forces" are imperialism. Left and right are enemies only in the matrix.
Marx may have failed as a social visionary, but he had capitalism figured out. It is based not on productivity or social benefit, but on the pursuit of capital growth through exploiting everything in its path. The job of elite planners is to create new spaces for capital to grow in. Competitive imperialism provided growth for centuries; collective imperialism was invented when still more growth was needed; and then neoliberalism took over. Like a cancer, capitalism consumes its host and is never satisfied. The capital pool must always grow, more and more, forever--until the host dies or capitalism is replaced.[/quote]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]but I cannot think of a more effective method to distribute wealth. If someone has an idea of a method that would be as efficient, please let me know.[/B][/QUOTE]
[b]The U.S. itself also has the largest gap and inequality between rich and poor compared to all the other industrialized nations. For example, the top 1% receive more money than the bottom 40% and the gap is the widest in 70 years. Furthermore, in the last 20 years while the share of income going to the top 1% has increased, it has decreased for the poorest 40%.[/b]
[url]http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/PovertyAroundTheWorld.asp[/url]
[url]http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/GeoRegions/NorthAmerica/china03.htm[/url]
How about "Understanding is a three-edged sword"?
[url]http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/01/11/punitive-and-it-works/[/url]
For maximum overall benefit... clearly any extreme of socio-economic models is *unlikely* to be recommendable.
It has been observed... that excessive socialism (especially in conditions where democracy is missing) tends to remove incentive. What has been likewise observed... perhaps only better forgotten... is that excessive capitalism does essentially the same. In stratified environment riddled with glass ceilings, individuals have little chance to achieve excellence merely with merit. They generally need a silver spoon, and even then may need to use deceit (unfair competition).
True. Economics where nothing happens without state... tend to stamp out desire to achieve. Yet equally true is this: where society (generally via state) fails balancing the tendency of capital to accumulate... environments form where it becomes very difficult (or essentially pointless) to try achieving fairly.
----------
Regarding the question about companies... I consider them a necessary form of social organization. I cannot suggest a social model which would permit stopping to have companies -- not anytime in near future.
However, companies just like governments... should be balanced. When they grow massive, and start losing contact with both employees (too long hierarchies of leadership), shareholders (too many institutional investors in between) and consumers (when you can manipulate competitors out of market, consumers have little choice)... some percentage of them always starts securing their position via unfair competition, monopoly, lobbying subsidies and tax vacations... generally trying to get everyone else to bend over backward.
That is frequently quite counterproductive, and my focus... is on avoiding that. Globalization is inevitable. It is merely that globalization of business must not walk too far ahead... of other facets of globalization. For example, the globalization of financial regulation (so massive sums don't jump though tiny loopholes) and the globalization of trade unions (so fair demands in one country cannot be too easily avoided by switching to cheap labour elsewhere).
North Korea verifing it has nukes is a bad thing since what is their next step now? A test? a demostration of their mighty power? It scares me that what length their leader Kim cuts his hair all citizens must cut their hair the same way. Not really a positive atmosphere there.
As with wealth distrubution and what models would work I think it is all farts in the wind. Reason being the underlining base of any system is PEOPLE. People are inherently currupt as sad as that sounds and really no matter what is done it will always be reflected as "The Haves and Have nots". All sytems have had that inequity always.
Non for profit companies who pay no taxes, never need to go off shore and make millions a year do you think they are really helping? I am sure some are helping a certain cause but you will always have the ones that are not and even have the million dollar presidents and directors on the payroll.
With the students being tracked I am sure that will be put into court and stopped or even better the students finding a way to disable the ability of the device.
my 2 worthless cents.
And all that talk in this thread up there is really just a useless crap arguing over each other, because we all here know how wrong things are in this world and we also know who all are responsible and who leads all this shit.
- PJH
[B]North Korea verifing it has nukes is a bad thing since what is their next step now? A test? a demostration of their mighty power?[/b][/quote]
You mean just like the USA did? And also Britain, France, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India and who else? They all have nuclear weapons and they all have tested them extensively and they [b]ALL[/b] have been aggressive and fought wars long after the WWII all the way to this very day. Only expection maybe being France who's not been aggressive in a while, although is having military operations outside of their country even today, but not aggressive as far as I know. North Korea HAS NOT since the Korean war over a half century ago.
And despite of all that, those countries still have from a small to a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons and the world is still not demanding them to get rid of them, not isolating them and not imposing sanctions. Yet they're screaming after N-Korea and Iran and the latter hardly is developing, or going to develope any nuclear weapons.
Ever heard of the word hypocricy? Or the saying watch in the mirror?
[quote][b]People are inherently currupt as sad as that sounds and really no matter what is done it will always be reflected as "The Haves and Have nots".[/b][/quote]
Wrong. People are not [b]inherently[/b] corrupt. They are made corrupt by the rotten societies of the world.
- PJH
Or the saying watch in the mirror?[/QUOTE]
I request that you examine this claim... more closely.
North Korea has not been satisfied with its "ceasefire". It has, on multiple occasions, provoked border skirmishes with South Korea -- and likewise attacked its border patrol vessels.
Had it possessed more resources... would you really think it would *not* have stepped up its aggression -- either towards its own people, or neigbours (most likely Soth Korea)?
I doubt that... think that only limited resources, and sufficient readiness on the other side of the border.. has limited its ventures.
--------
It punishes people severely for even slight and peaceful political disagreement... and permanently maintains a notable number of concentration/starvation camps.
For most Western countries in their current state... this is *not* a mirror. If yes, then a highly distorted mirror... reflecting information from multiple decades back, and only the most messed-up countries.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]I have a simple question, would you rather have Kim Jong Il's form of 'freedom'?
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
No, but I think it more unlikely to be imposed on me than the american type..
[B]Had it possessed more resources... would you really think it would *not* have stepped up its aggression -- either towards its own people, or neigbours (most likely Soth Korea)?[/B][/QUOTE]
Probably not, since it is a small country compared to south koreas allies..
Perilous times...
[B]
Had it possessed more resources... would you really think it would *not* have stepped up its aggression -- either towards its own people, or neigbours (most likely Soth Korea)?
. [/B][/QUOTE]
If N.K. Had more Resourses, Natural or other wise the US would have invaded.
Spurious relationship, based on assumptions that ignore both history and the present. Or unsubstantiated, if you prefer.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Messiah[/i]
[B]I wonder what Corners (countries) he is talking about, as I dont think I would want the Bush administrations type of 'freedom'.[/b][/quote]
And what would that be?
[B]And what would that be? [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, ruling by intimidation and putting fear into the heart of its citizens for example..
So we have a terror alert level. It's not like anyone but law enforcement/security, etc. care about it. No one packs a set of mace or spends time in a bomb shelter because we moved up a level.
Then there are the hippies, who put up fliers asking "Do we live in a police state?" and yelling about this so-called culture of fear the government is trying to make us live under. I guess because they're the complete opposite, and don't use such tactics...
Maybe when Bush proves protestors right when they compare him to Hitler, or builds his own Palace of the End can anyone put freedom in quotation marks as a reference to his style of it. Until then, the whole "the government is trying to scare us" thing is just a fear-mongering campaign denouncing another (percieved) fearmongering campaign -- one that doesn't work on anyone that didn't already believe it.