Dude, you live in a frigid wasteland. I don't think so.
I live south of a vast boreal rainforest. My home is on a sunny plain no different from north dokota. Vancouver resembles Wahsinton/northern Cali. Ontario is like Maine. I'm within an hour of two dozen breath taking cmapign spot. My 900kbit/s internet cost $37 cnd, I essentially have no limits on download. health care costs me 0. It wont' bankrupt me either. And all my food costs exactly the same as yours but in canadian dollars.
Otherwise, who gives a shit how often the hypochondriacs go to the doctor? In the US we have enough GPs to handle triage. Sounds like Canada doesn't, to the detriment of their supposedly 'superior' health care system. Hint: it's only superior because they have ours right next door. If China were their next door neighbor I suspect things would be different.
The number of people who cross the border for Treatment in the US is far far exceeded in dolalr value by the americans who come up for medication (some partially subsidized by our gov). Don't be so arrogant. The US does not have the best of everything. The middle class get better healthcare here then they do down in the states. The upper class could care less because they get the same specialists anywhere they go. Also some cities have world renown specialists, for instance Edmonton has some very very good heart surgeons. These doctors could make ten times as much in the states but they stay because their patriotic canadians and love their country.
Several polls of canadians show that over 90% of them prefer their system to ours. THey live right next door; they speak the same language; they share the same culture; they are knowledgeable about our system and are knowledgeable about their system. If our system is so much better than theirs, then why do about 93% of Canadians prefer their system to the American system?
Where do you get this poll and did it come from the office of the Conservative alliance. If this were true why does any party that even midly suggest that it might be a good diea to start a study to see if we coudl adopt the american system, gets vilified like they just purposed that legalize eating babies? Why does every pole say Canadians are satisfied with their healthcare but concerned abotu wait time. IT's not perfect. But it's nowhere close to what you suggest.
You tried twice already. Both time we kicked your ass despite supurior forces. Try it again and we'll burn down your white house again. Our um... super lumber jacks and err.. war mooses will ravage your punny national gaurd.
Canada's Oil Reserve is larger then a following poster says. According to Syncrude and the University of Alberta organic chem dept. We have an oil reserve in alberta that exceeds all of the middle east. But thats tar sand. our traditional oil reserve is a little bit less then Saudi Arabia.
It's largly true, that the market is erratic and "unpredictable" because your guessing what the average buyer is doing, and their doing the same thing. So it's a whole room full of psychics trying to anticipate everyone elses move. General trends can be decerned but individual events are difficult. So it's nto ignorance. it's a Truism.
This is true. We demand the benefits of an open market, and yet we complain when taxes are high enough to support the social programs that other countries have. Someday people will realize that we can't have our cake and eat it too. I personally think the risk of going broke and living without healthcare is worth the ability to make yourself rich by your own accopmplishments and ambition.
Or you can live in Canada, and still prosper or sink by your own devices. But never be left without healthcare and soem support. Canada does capatalism very well. We have 84% of your per capita GNP but have a much much much better social system. We misse dthat last recession you had, and our economy is almost exactly 1/10 yours( the relative population idfference). We're just like you but happier.
Oh come on, what Muslims do YOU know? Maybe the ones you know aren't very religious or educated. No, your single anecdote is Not sufficient proof.
Muslims as a majority are pretty moderate. Not much dogma or hatred, really. Iraqis as a whole didnt really want Islamic law ruling their country, and Indonesia consistenly votes against it in their polls. What Muslims are you talking to?
Compare it this way, what reaction do you get when you ask Jews about history/religion/arabs/palestine?
My ex-GF was indonesian. She'd be pretty surprised that the people who burned down her church and high school are "moderate". She's also be very surprised that the mob that raped her aunt was moderate. I'm also very sure that she wouldn't think the group of guys that grouped her ont he bus for being Katholic were moderates. Voting against Sharia law does not make them moderate. The fact that most Fundementalist christians don't want the old testment laws to apply, doesn't mean their any less exstreme. Remember indonesia had a lot of race and religious riots in the near past. I'm certain that every member of that mob was not moderate.
As a addendum I stated that, in fact many many many fundemnetalists get that glassy eyed hatred in their eyes. I'm sure many jews are the same.
Also, if there are so many moderates, where are they. Al Jezeera is considered a "moderate" channel for arabs and I don't hear them pleading for moderate solutions to isreal or stating moderate opinions, like perhaps it's not foreigners responsible for eveything bad. Maybe their own gov. are bastards. Moderates need to speak up. When a Palastinian terrorists blows up so many of his own people, where are the moderate to condemn them. Most of them were silent. I ask my friends about the situation, regaurdless of where they come, from they tout destroying isreal to be the solution. Indonesian, Mayasian, Lebenese, Palastinian, and Pakistani. Thats their solutions. A couple of the guys don't comments, they say "fuck them all, it's not my problem". But there seems to be a uniformity about their responses.
To put this in perspective. The Insrealis displaced 1-3 million palastinians, killed possibly 1 million in all the wars and through other means and took over a area of land the size of a medium sized state. The Japanese killed 20-30 million chinese civillians. Brutaly slaughtering every chinese person they found. The Rape of nanking was horrific. How many Chinese will say the same? how many chinese people hate the Japanese and want nothing but for them to die?
Not that many. If there are a significant number of Arab and Muslim Moderates, where are they? why aren't they pressing for change? Why does Isreal deserved to bedestroyed now? Why are Muslims so unbiqutous in their hate of Isreal, regaurdless of how unrelated isreal is to them? Why is nearly every Muslim majority such pricks to their minorities? Malaysia might be one of the few almost "moderate" muslim countries. Even they have issues.
PS. I met most of these muslim gentlemen at University, one has an internship at IBM, another went back home to indonesia to work. The others come from my circle of friends, they tend to be white washed but still hold those feelings. Their all canadians and have lived most of their lives here. The attitudes they have are passed down through their parents or possibly their clerics. I live in Edmonton, AB. One of the largest concentrations of Arabs in Canada reside here.
Fundamentalist anything scares me. Who cares about the religion at hand? Once someone has a fundamentalist mindset, its sort of like an occult-like grab. Nothing breaks it.
The problem is, with Arab countries. The moderates are in no way a majority. It's like the south. 90% fundies, all glassy eyed and brain washed. Even muslims in non-arab countries tend to be fundies. I know a BSC grad who denies evolution and he's Pakastani.
To be fair, as an addendum: Many christians (I am one) has the same problems. Even a Gay Falun Gong practitioner I know. Mention the chinese Gov or flaun gong and his eyes glaze over and he goes on a 30 min diatribe. And many fundies get glassy over almost everything. I'm a Dutch baptist, I meet a lot of these people.
In large parts of the western world Islam is portrayed as a rather violent religion, with all that talk about Jihad that originates from a vocal minority of extremists. The fear of the moderate majority is that the game will serve to reinforce this image. So it's understandable that sensitive muslims may get offended. I wouldn't feel comfortable if a game that reenacts the Christian atrocities of the crusades were distributed widely in the Arab world.
Moderate and majority is a word I would not use with "muslim". Mod me down, but I do know a lot of muslims and have a dozen muslim friends. Their reasonable and generous people but on facts of history/religion/jews they eyes glaze over and there is nothing but dogma and hatred in their hearts. Even Indonesian/pakistani/malasian muslims.
The 'unregulated' markets and industries you speak of didn't exist. Workers were treated poorly not because of the free market, but because business was capable of using the government to impose legislation in their favor. This has pretty much been a truism of the American economy since Thomas Jefferson left office.
The entire concept of 'eminent domain' was radically extended not for the 'good of the people', but so that rail barons could seize land at will and recompense the original owner for pennies on the dollar. A number of laws were passed with the goal of outlawing unions, which led to the famous Pinkerton clashes and widespread police brutality against union leaders.
Your 'unregulated' markets are nothing more than a liberal fantasy promulgated after the '60's to justify the expansion of the welfare state.
What your speaking about is corruption. And no matter what your government there will be corruption. If you want to do a modern day comparison between governments, you'll find people tend to be happier and have a better quality of life in some countries with a very large government to population ratio and very restrictive regulations. Horrible places to live tend to have smaller governments.
Compare the gem of "capatalist" ideals the US. Compare it to it's essentially identical neighbor Canada. The US has a low rate of government interference and a small government to population ratio, and has exstremly high crime rates, obscene violent crime rates (even now). Large proportion of your populace are in jail, and the levels of poverty is high. Average salaries and per capita GNP is 14% higher then Canada, but after conversion and subtracting cost of living both have very similiar buying power. Canada has universal health care of a quality that is as good or better then 90% of American private insurance and comparable to any and all European plans. Low crime rates, negligible violent crime and only a small percentage of the populace in jail. In surveys a larger portion of the populace reports they are happy and the percentage of home ownership is higher.
As for economy, The US has gone into a recession with a very slow recovery in the last 5 years while Canada hasn't experienced this. Canada has one fo the highest growth rates of the G8. Despite regulations Canada has one of the highest rates of small business per capita and much higher then the states. There is true compitition is a lot of different industries in Canada while the states has much more monopolies. Canada has lower rates of corruption even though the government has more control over the laws and regulations.
Canada's political system favors one party (the natural ruling party), and has a large and mainly incumbent bureaucracy that doesn't change between governments. The PM's office runs the ruling party which rules the country and thus they are an elected dictatorship with flexible election times and thus minimial accoutnability (also favoring the party in power). They also adhere to a first past the post system with the PM being the leader of the winning party, thus while the two mains parties have a differential of 5-6%, the winning party still has a large majority of the seats. The government essentially has it's hands in all aspects of life as well, with heavy regulations for all commerce and all comercial products, much more so then the US. Canada is a huge welfare state, competes toe to toe with the US in science and commerce(incidentally all the uranium for the manhatten project was canadian refined and canadian mined as well a large amount of the peripheral support staff and consultants were also canadian), and is the US's largest trading partner. Canada is also a heavily left leaning nation.
Both populations are similiar in ethnic makeup and "immigrant" heavy mix. Both nations have industrious hard working people who willingly put in 40+ hours of work a week.
Japan also have huge amount of regulations and still competed and beats the US in many areas.
Yes, there are capitalist shitholes too, but communism has no US, Japan, UK, etc etc to boast of. The capitalist successes are numerous; the communist successes are nonexistant. China doesn't count; their recent economic successes are entirely due to capitalism. Their motives for becoming capitalist are irrelevant. Calling Canada a socialist state is laughable; nationalized health care does not a socialist state make. Many European countries have a lot of social programs but they are still fundamentally based in the capitalist
It's not so clear. China is still a centrally planned economy with autonomous agenst carrying out the plans. Thats is the central governments heavily regulates whats allowed and sets the goals and quotas while private companies do the work. As well, Cuba is a decent place to live and visit. It's not ideal but no country is.
PS. It is true that those countries are not idelogically or structurally socialis but they have a deep "socialist" bent in their politics. They value there people more then their corporations.
Communisms isnt' some thing I support, but it's not to say it didn't work. A lot of other factors influenced the fall of the USSR. As a pure example of the failur eof communism, it's a straw man argument. Also disbaring china as an example is similiar to droppign evidence that doesn't support your case. Communism is a harsh and disagreeable system, but it's not that far from any other dictatorship, and in practice dictatorships work.
Power Play (Score:1) by GoldenWolf (767107) on Wednesday August 18, @10:26PM (#10008809) Yet another power play from Microsoft, once again aimed at the world in general. If this case goes through, it will add yet more lock-in to Microsoft's already locked in platform, while hurting the world in general. Does this mean we can no longer view Flash content from Linux or OS X? Furthermore, most ad-blocking software is based on some sort of internet plugin. So does this mean that we have to get bombarded with popup ads just because we don't run IE? Does this mean we have to pay some huge licensing fee to create a plugin for a browser -- or worse, have to pay a huge fee and have to use Microsoft's development software to create a browser plugin?
This could be the end of the 'Web as we know it. Internet Explorer and Windows country from here on, folks
This is what they call a severe case of RTFA. With a little of RTFT (Read the fucking Title) on top. There might even be some IST (Intentionally Stupid Trolling), but I think the chance is small.
That's the point though - the capitalist system spread things out over many competing interests. If one of those interests made a poor decision it would indeed fall behind and eventually fail. The failure of one competing interest simply makes way for the sucess of others who chose a different path, and the system as a whole survives.
In the centralized communist system everything is determined from one central point, and hence one bad decision that leads to failure causes the whole system to fall behind and fail. The system does not adapt efficiently.
Think of it as the difference between an ecosystem that adapts to changes - some species wax, while others wane, but the system reacts to and balances for any changes - compared to an attempt to ccentrally manage an ecosystem: humans have tried to create managed ecosystems in the past, and they mostly lead to collapse. We are far better off letting the system be free to adapt itself than expecting some all knowing central organisation structure to accurately predict all required changes and adaptations.
This is true, a decentralized systems weathers change better. However the number of decision making individuals in the American system is pretty slim as well. A more small business minded nation like Canada weathers the changes even better because they have so many small risk takers going in many different directions. Canada has not experienced the same recession the US is currently in. A number of facts contribute to this and one of them is the prevalence of small business in Canada. But Canada is also a psuedo socialist state. It focuses both on it's people and it's business. It's not perfect but has resulted in a happier populace and lower crime rates and lower poverty.
But communism does work so long as the decision making is prudent. I don't liek the system, it does have some issues but it did work for many natiosn for 50 years. The reason it's become near exstinct is because the US has been gunning for them for a long time. Woudl the USSR still be aroudn if Reagan and his predisesors didn't arms race them to death? Cuba is doign fine. Dictatorship are the most common form of government right now and in the past. Dictatorships/Monarchies/Oligarchies had a centralized decision making proccess and have been the most common type of government in all of history. And the kingdoms/empires/countries became strong or grew weak on the strength of their leaders.
Democracy is the same. The US is growing weak with it's lack of good leadership while China is growing stron with it's strong leaders. The senate and the Legion could not save rome from it's lack of leaders (and lead poisoning coinciding with the vandals and a huge slew of other problems).
Capatalism has a problem too. It's slowly forcing Americans into the service industry and at some poitn it will no longer be the biggest and most profitable market for goods, because everyone will make minimium wage (over simplification, most will make min). This results in heavily reduced buying power but allows corps to locally maximize profit(a global mazimium would be near to impossible to calculate). It diminishes the country and creates great decent and inequity. At some point the people might get sick of it and change the system.
BTW, the US just took down two dictatorships and are replacing them with democracies...
And the US is proping up a few dictatorships in the area (Egypt, Saudi arabia, ect..). The US does not support democracy. The US supports US interests.
Re:A New Economics System? (Score:1) by PMW (203329) on Wednesday August 18, @12:02PM (#10002477) Look, saying that Communism failed because, "computers happened along the scene and gave the capatalists a huge production increase" is simplistic to the point of being moronic.
Communism failed in Russia because the central planning made bad dicisions. One of them is nto fully embracing Computer electronics. My poitn was, poor decision making was the issue. Not Embracing computer tech was an example. Nimrod.
The more powerful the government, the easier it is for those with wealth to manipulate the government into interfering with the free market in their favor. That isn't a fault of capitalism, but a fault of the political system you live in. If you want a 'real' free market you need to curtail the ability of government to interfere with that market. The less power the government has over the free market, the less power the wealthy have to buy a continuation of the status quo through government action.
Bullshit. The unregulated markets and industries of the early 1900's resulted in very poor treatment of workers, horrible living conditions and unrivaled poverty and discontent. It also resulted in stock market crashes and other issues.
... potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world
Not going to happen - because the US will just swallow up (read: US-Australia Free Trade Agreement) anything that seems to be creeping ahead, thus quashing these technologies in other parts of the world as well.
You are alreay behind in economic growth, even behind your neighbors ot the north. Your stagnating. China is kicking your ass too.
err. Photoshp > gimp. MS Office > staroffice. Oracle > mySQL. Mac OX X > most other Linux implementations. Solitare > Tux Racer. the list goes on. thats a pretty naive view.
Before you blame the corporations (oops too late), take a quick look at the article, and you'll see that the only way they are able to prevent change is through "manipulating the political process". Everyone with an Econ 101 class under their belt should know that businesses should do everything in their power to suceed in the market, which should mean work hard, if the government is doing it's job. But, surprise, surprise, it's not! So before you get pissed off at the corportations and ask the government to assume more power (which will inevitably be used illegitimately by the highest bidder) to kick them down, think a little, and ask the government to do less. Then the people decide which firms survive and which do not with their dollar votes. It's 1000000 times better than democracy!
This works only if you aren't the onyl game in town. Monopolies do not have significant compitition and it becomes a one party election. Corporations tend to behave unethically, and a social system should serve it's people not it's legal entities. Thus Capatalism needs a healthy does of regulation too.
And why didn't communists adapt, with their organization and central planning, when capitalism did adapt in an efficient and decentralized way? It's not happenstance or a mere coincidence, as you suggest. It's an inherent flaw in the communist system. Capitalism's decentralized system of incentives is inherently a better motivator and decision guide than communism's central planning.
Many Capatalists corporations couldn't either. they over commited to certain methods of production and died. They went bankrupt. The decision makers took the wrong choice. Thats what happened to the USSR. They mad a choice to try and match military output with the US and it bankrupted them. They were unable to both sustain a non-military production and military production on par with the US. Finally their people just wouldn't support the system. Now, without Soviet bribes and force; the other communist states had no incentive to stay communist. Many changed because the US did offer bribes and incentives to change. Many of these states were forced into communism.
OK, how's this: almost every implementation of communism has failed to produce a lasting, prosperous nation. Wikipedia's list of 20th century communist states reads like a list of places not to live.
Cuba is stable, and has done alright considering the embargoes. Yugoslavia had a good regime for a while and a decent living. China is stable, and their transitioning has many other motives.
Also, many countries with a capatalist system are absolute shit holes. The Philipines. Nice to visit but horrible to live in. Jaimaca is incredible to visit but not so good to live in. Fuck, South central LA, The ghettos in detroit ect.. aren't nice places to live.
Many nations struggle with a lot of systems. A lot don't work out. It's not so much an indictment of the system, but the circumstances. Take Democracy. It fails a lot, partly due to the US. They take a hardline stance against certain beleifs and governments and will over throw a democratic gov. that does not support the US interests and install dictatorships. Did democracy fail there?
Althrough I see your point. It's not just communism that makes those places shit holes. Just as it's not capatalism per se that makes some other places shit holes, but underlying issues. As well, the ideal of the communism systems are prevalent in many Socialist states and their nice places ot live. Canada, Norway, Iceland, France ect.... They lack the centralised economic planning but they have the focus on workers irghts. Does this mena socialism is more successful then Capatalism because it has more countries you want to live in?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you live in a frigid wasteland. I don't think so.
I live south of a vast boreal rainforest. My home is on a sunny plain no different from north dokota. Vancouver resembles Wahsinton/northern Cali. Ontario is like Maine. I'm within an hour of two dozen breath taking cmapign spot. My 900kbit/s internet cost $37 cnd, I essentially have no limits on download. health care costs me 0. It wont' bankrupt me either. And all my food costs exactly the same as yours but in canadian dollars.
Otherwise, who gives a shit how often the hypochondriacs go to the doctor? In the US we have enough GPs to handle triage. Sounds like Canada doesn't, to the detriment of their supposedly 'superior' health care system. Hint: it's only superior because they have ours right next door. If China were their next door neighbor I suspect things would be different.
The number of people who cross the border for Treatment in the US is far far exceeded in dolalr value by the americans who come up for medication (some partially subsidized by our gov). Don't be so arrogant. The US does not have the best of everything. The middle class get better healthcare here then they do down in the states. The upper class could care less because they get the same specialists anywhere they go. Also some cities have world renown specialists, for instance Edmonton has some very very good heart surgeons. These doctors could make ten times as much in the states but they stay because their patriotic canadians and love their country.
Several polls of canadians show that over 90% of them prefer their system to ours. THey live right next door; they speak the same language; they share the same culture; they are knowledgeable about our system and are knowledgeable about their system. If our system is so much better than theirs, then why do about 93% of Canadians prefer their system to the American system?
Where do you get this poll and did it come from the office of the Conservative alliance. If this were true why does any party that even midly suggest that it might be a good diea to start a study to see if we coudl adopt the american system, gets vilified like they just purposed that legalize eating babies? Why does every pole say Canadians are satisfied with their healthcare but concerned abotu wait time. IT's not perfect. But it's nowhere close to what you suggest.
Invade Canada.
You tried twice already. Both time we kicked your ass despite supurior forces. Try it again and we'll burn down your white house again. Our um... super lumber jacks and err.. war mooses will ravage your punny national gaurd.
Canada's Oil Reserve is larger then a following poster says. According to Syncrude and the University of Alberta organic chem dept. We have an oil reserve in alberta that exceeds all of the middle east. But thats tar sand. our traditional oil reserve is a little bit less then Saudi Arabia.
Or is ignorant...
It's largly true, that the market is erratic and "unpredictable" because your guessing what the average buyer is doing, and their doing the same thing. So it's a whole room full of psychics trying to anticipate everyone elses move. General trends can be decerned but individual events are difficult. So it's nto ignorance. it's a Truism.
This is true. We demand the benefits of an open market, and yet we complain when taxes are high enough to support the social programs that other countries have. Someday people will realize that we can't have our cake and eat it too. I personally think the risk of going broke and living without healthcare is worth the ability to make yourself rich by your own accopmplishments and ambition.
Or you can live in Canada, and still prosper or sink by your own devices. But never be left without healthcare and soem support. Canada does capatalism very well. We have 84% of your per capita GNP but have a much much much better social system. We misse dthat last recession you had, and our economy is almost exactly 1/10 yours( the relative population idfference). We're just like you but happier.
Oh come on, what Muslims do YOU know? Maybe the ones you know aren't very religious or educated. No, your single anecdote is Not sufficient proof.
Muslims as a majority are pretty moderate. Not much dogma or hatred, really. Iraqis as a whole didnt really want Islamic law ruling their country, and Indonesia consistenly votes against it in their polls. What Muslims are you talking to?
Compare it this way, what reaction do you get when you ask Jews about history/religion/arabs/palestine?
My ex-GF was indonesian. She'd be pretty surprised that the people who burned down her church and high school are "moderate". She's also be very surprised that the mob that raped her aunt was moderate. I'm also very sure that she wouldn't think the group of guys that grouped her ont he bus for being Katholic were moderates. Voting against Sharia law does not make them moderate. The fact that most Fundementalist christians don't want the old testment laws to apply, doesn't mean their any less exstreme. Remember indonesia had a lot of race and religious riots in the near past. I'm certain that every member of that mob was not moderate.
As a addendum I stated that, in fact many many many fundemnetalists get that glassy eyed hatred in their eyes. I'm sure many jews are the same.
Also, if there are so many moderates, where are they. Al Jezeera is considered a "moderate" channel for arabs and I don't hear them pleading for moderate solutions to isreal or stating moderate opinions, like perhaps it's not foreigners responsible for eveything bad. Maybe their own gov. are bastards. Moderates need to speak up. When a Palastinian terrorists blows up so many of his own people, where are the moderate to condemn them. Most of them were silent. I ask my friends about the situation, regaurdless of where they come, from they tout destroying isreal to be the solution. Indonesian, Mayasian, Lebenese, Palastinian, and Pakistani. Thats their solutions. A couple of the guys don't comments, they say "fuck them all, it's not my problem". But there seems to be a uniformity about their responses.
To put this in perspective. The Insrealis displaced 1-3 million palastinians, killed possibly 1 million in all the wars and through other means and took over a area of land the size of a medium sized state. The Japanese killed 20-30 million chinese civillians. Brutaly slaughtering every chinese person they found. The Rape of nanking was horrific. How many Chinese will say the same? how many chinese people hate the Japanese and want nothing but for them to die?
Not that many. If there are a significant number of Arab and Muslim Moderates, where are they? why aren't they pressing for change? Why does Isreal deserved to bedestroyed now? Why are Muslims so unbiqutous in their hate of Isreal, regaurdless of how unrelated isreal is to them? Why is nearly every Muslim majority such pricks to their minorities? Malaysia might be one of the few almost "moderate" muslim countries. Even they have issues.
PS. I met most of these muslim gentlemen at University, one has an internship at IBM, another went back home to indonesia to work. The others come from my circle of friends, they tend to be white washed but still hold those feelings. Their all canadians and have lived most of their lives here. The attitudes they have are passed down through their parents or possibly their clerics. I live in Edmonton, AB. One of the largest concentrations of Arabs in Canada reside here.
Fundamentalist anything scares me. Who cares about the religion at hand? Once someone has a fundamentalist mindset, its sort of like an occult-like grab. Nothing breaks it.
The problem is, with Arab countries. The moderates are in no way a majority. It's like the south. 90% fundies, all glassy eyed and brain washed. Even muslims in non-arab countries tend to be fundies. I know a BSC grad who denies evolution and he's Pakastani.
you missed:
1. burn power book
2. ???
3. profit
and
My power book burned
you insensitiev clodd
To be fair, as an addendum: Many christians (I am one) has the same problems. Even a Gay Falun Gong practitioner I know. Mention the chinese Gov or flaun gong and his eyes glaze over and he goes on a 30 min diatribe. And many fundies get glassy over almost everything. I'm a Dutch baptist, I meet a lot of these people.
In large parts of the western world Islam is portrayed as a rather violent religion, with all that talk about Jihad that originates from a vocal minority of extremists. The fear of the moderate majority is that the game will serve to reinforce this image. So it's understandable that sensitive muslims may get offended. I wouldn't feel comfortable if a game that reenacts the Christian atrocities of the crusades were distributed widely in the Arab world.
Moderate and majority is a word I would not use with "muslim". Mod me down, but I do know a lot of muslims and have a dozen muslim friends. Their reasonable and generous people but on facts of history/religion/jews they eyes glaze over and there is nothing but dogma and hatred in their hearts. Even Indonesian/pakistani/malasian muslims.
Several Arab countries resented being called either "Oil" or "Just terrorists".
That should be Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, UAE, Texas, and Any country with any muslim people.
The 'unregulated' markets and industries you speak of didn't exist. Workers were treated poorly not because of the free market, but because business was capable of using the government to impose legislation in their favor. This has pretty much been a truism of the American economy since Thomas Jefferson left office.
The entire concept of 'eminent domain' was radically extended not for the 'good of the people', but so that rail barons could seize land at will and recompense the original owner for pennies on the dollar. A number of laws were passed with the goal of outlawing unions, which led to the famous Pinkerton clashes and widespread police brutality against union leaders.
Your 'unregulated' markets are nothing more than a liberal fantasy promulgated after the '60's to justify the expansion of the welfare state.
What your speaking about is corruption. And no matter what your government there will be corruption. If you want to do a modern day comparison between governments, you'll find people tend to be happier and have a better quality of life in some countries with a very large government to population ratio and very restrictive regulations. Horrible places to live tend to have smaller governments.
Compare the gem of "capatalist" ideals the US. Compare it to it's essentially identical neighbor Canada. The US has a low rate of government interference and a small government to population ratio, and has exstremly high crime rates, obscene violent crime rates (even now). Large proportion of your populace are in jail, and the levels of poverty is high. Average salaries and per capita GNP is 14% higher then Canada, but after conversion and subtracting cost of living both have very similiar buying power. Canada has universal health care of a quality that is as good or better then 90% of American private insurance and comparable to any and all European plans. Low crime rates, negligible violent crime and only a small percentage of the populace in jail. In surveys a larger portion of the populace reports they are happy and the percentage of home ownership is higher.
As for economy, The US has gone into a recession with a very slow recovery in the last 5 years while Canada hasn't experienced this. Canada has one fo the highest growth rates of the G8. Despite regulations Canada has one of the highest rates of small business per capita and much higher then the states. There is true compitition is a lot of different industries in Canada while the states has much more monopolies. Canada has lower rates of corruption even though the government has more control over the laws and regulations.
Canada's political system favors one party (the natural ruling party), and has a large and mainly incumbent bureaucracy that doesn't change between governments. The PM's office runs the ruling party which rules the country and thus they are an elected dictatorship with flexible election times and thus minimial accoutnability (also favoring the party in power). They also adhere to a first past the post system with the PM being the leader of the winning party, thus while the two mains parties have a differential of 5-6%, the winning party still has a large majority of the seats. The government essentially has it's hands in all aspects of life as well, with heavy regulations for all commerce and all comercial products, much more so then the US. Canada is a huge welfare state, competes toe to toe with the US in science and commerce(incidentally all the uranium for the manhatten project was canadian refined and canadian mined as well a large amount of the peripheral support staff and consultants were also canadian), and is the US's largest trading partner. Canada is also a heavily left leaning nation.
Both populations are similiar in ethnic makeup and "immigrant" heavy mix. Both nations have industrious hard working people who willingly put in 40+ hours of work a week.
Japan also have huge amount of regulations and still competed and beats the US in many areas.
And I assu
Yes, there are capitalist shitholes too, but communism has no US, Japan, UK, etc etc to boast of. The capitalist successes are numerous; the communist successes are nonexistant. China doesn't count; their recent economic successes are entirely due to capitalism. Their motives for becoming capitalist are irrelevant. Calling Canada a socialist state is laughable; nationalized health care does not a socialist state make. Many European countries have a lot of social programs but they are still fundamentally based in the capitalist
It's not so clear. China is still a centrally planned economy with autonomous agenst carrying out the plans. Thats is the central governments heavily regulates whats allowed and sets the goals and quotas while private companies do the work. As well, Cuba is a decent place to live and visit. It's not ideal but no country is.
PS. It is true that those countries are not idelogically or structurally socialis but they have a deep "socialist" bent in their politics. They value there people more then their corporations.
Communisms isnt' some thing I support, but it's not to say it didn't work. A lot of other factors influenced the fall of the USSR. As a pure example of the failur eof communism, it's a straw man argument. Also disbaring china as an example is similiar to droppign evidence that doesn't support your case. Communism is a harsh and disagreeable system, but it's not that far from any other dictatorship, and in practice dictatorships work.
Power Play (Score:1)
by GoldenWolf (767107) on Wednesday August 18, @10:26PM (#10008809)
Yet another power play from Microsoft, once again aimed at the world in general. If this case goes through, it will add yet more lock-in to Microsoft's already locked in platform, while hurting the world in general. Does this mean we can no longer view Flash content from Linux or OS X?
Furthermore, most ad-blocking software is based on some sort of internet plugin. So does this mean that we have to get bombarded with popup ads just because we don't run IE?
Does this mean we have to pay some huge licensing fee to create a plugin for a browser -- or worse, have to pay a huge fee and have to use Microsoft's development software to create a browser plugin?
This could be the end of the 'Web as we know it. Internet Explorer and Windows country from here on, folks
This is what they call a severe case of RTFA. With a little of RTFT (Read the fucking Title) on top. There might even be some IST (Intentionally Stupid Trolling), but I think the chance is small.
That's the point though - the capitalist system spread things out over many competing interests. If one of those interests made a poor decision it would indeed fall behind and eventually fail. The failure of one competing interest simply makes way for the sucess of others who chose a different path, and the system as a whole survives.
In the centralized communist system everything is determined from one central point, and hence one bad decision that leads to failure causes the whole system to fall behind and fail. The system does not adapt efficiently.
Think of it as the difference between an ecosystem that adapts to changes - some species wax, while others wane, but the system reacts to and balances for any changes - compared to an attempt to ccentrally manage an ecosystem: humans have tried to create managed ecosystems in the past, and they mostly lead to collapse. We are far better off letting the system be free to adapt itself than expecting some all knowing central organisation structure to accurately predict all required changes and adaptations.
This is true, a decentralized systems weathers change better. However the number of decision making individuals in the American system is pretty slim as well. A more small business minded nation like Canada weathers the changes even better because they have so many small risk takers going in many different directions. Canada has not experienced the same recession the US is currently in. A number of facts contribute to this and one of them is the prevalence of small business in Canada. But Canada is also a psuedo socialist state. It focuses both on it's people and it's business. It's not perfect but has resulted in a happier populace and lower crime rates and lower poverty.
But communism does work so long as the decision making is prudent. I don't liek the system, it does have some issues but it did work for many natiosn for 50 years. The reason it's become near exstinct is because the US has been gunning for them for a long time. Woudl the USSR still be aroudn if Reagan and his predisesors didn't arms race them to death? Cuba is doign fine. Dictatorship are the most common form of government right now and in the past. Dictatorships/Monarchies/Oligarchies had a centralized decision making proccess and have been the most common type of government in all of history. And the kingdoms/empires/countries became strong or grew weak on the strength of their leaders.
Democracy is the same. The US is growing weak with it's lack of good leadership while China is growing stron with it's strong leaders. The senate and the Legion could not save rome from it's lack of leaders (and lead poisoning coinciding with the vandals and a huge slew of other problems).
Capatalism has a problem too. It's slowly forcing Americans into the service industry and at some poitn it will no longer be the biggest and most profitable market for goods, because everyone will make minimium wage (over simplification, most will make min). This results in heavily reduced buying power but allows corps to locally maximize profit(a global mazimium would be near to impossible to calculate). It diminishes the country and creates great decent and inequity. At some point the people might get sick of it and change the system.
BTW, the US just took down two dictatorships and are replacing them with democracies...
And the US is proping up a few dictatorships in the area (Egypt, Saudi arabia, ect..). The US does not support democracy. The US supports US interests.
Re:A New Economics System? (Score:1)
by PMW (203329) on Wednesday August 18, @12:02PM (#10002477)
Look, saying that Communism failed because,
"computers happened along the scene and gave the capatalists a huge production increase" is simplistic to the point of being moronic.
Communism failed in Russia because the central planning made bad dicisions. One of them is nto fully embracing Computer electronics. My poitn was, poor decision making was the issue. Not Embracing computer tech was an example. Nimrod.
The more powerful the government, the easier it is for those with wealth to manipulate the government into interfering with the free market in their favor. That isn't a fault of capitalism, but a fault of the political system you live in. If you want a 'real' free market you need to curtail the ability of government to interfere with that market. The less power the government has over the free market, the less power the wealthy have to buy a continuation of the status quo through government action.
Bullshit. The unregulated markets and industries of the early 1900's resulted in very poor treatment of workers, horrible living conditions and unrivaled poverty and discontent. It also resulted in stock market crashes and other issues.
Smith = moron. Marx = Hippie. Keynes = God.
... potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world
Not going to happen - because the US will just swallow up (read: US-Australia Free Trade Agreement) anything that seems to be creeping ahead, thus quashing these technologies in other parts of the world as well.
You are alreay behind in economic growth, even behind your neighbors ot the north. Your stagnating. China is kicking your ass too.
Open source is superior to brand name any day
err.
Photoshp > gimp.
MS Office > staroffice.
Oracle > mySQL.
Mac OX X > most other Linux implementations.
Solitare > Tux Racer.
the list goes on. thats a pretty naive view.
Capitalism is triumphant in China. The question is how long dictatorship there can survive rising personal income.
likly, indefinently. Remember most of the world is under dictator ships. The US often takes down democracies.
Before you blame the corporations (oops too late), take a quick look at the article, and you'll see that the only way they are able to prevent change is through "manipulating the political process". Everyone with an Econ 101 class under their belt should know that businesses should do everything in their power to suceed in the market, which should mean work hard, if the government is doing it's job. But, surprise, surprise, it's not! So before you get pissed off at the corportations and ask the government to assume more power (which will inevitably be used illegitimately by the highest bidder) to kick them down, think a little, and ask the government to do less. Then the people decide which firms survive and which do not with their dollar votes. It's 1000000 times better than democracy!
This works only if you aren't the onyl game in town. Monopolies do not have significant compitition and it becomes a one party election. Corporations tend to behave unethically, and a social system should serve it's people not it's legal entities. Thus Capatalism needs a healthy does of regulation too.
Smith = Moron. Marx = Hippy. Keynes = right-way.
And why didn't communists adapt, with their organization and central planning, when capitalism did adapt in an efficient and decentralized way? It's not happenstance or a mere coincidence, as you suggest. It's an inherent flaw in the communist system. Capitalism's decentralized system of incentives is inherently a better motivator and decision guide than communism's central planning.
Many Capatalists corporations couldn't either. they over commited to certain methods of production and died. They went bankrupt. The decision makers took the wrong choice. Thats what happened to the USSR. They mad a choice to try and match military output with the US and it bankrupted them. They were unable to both sustain a non-military production and military production on par with the US. Finally their people just wouldn't support the system. Now, without Soviet bribes and force; the other communist states had no incentive to stay communist. Many changed because the US did offer bribes and incentives to change. Many of these states were forced into communism.
OK, how's this: almost every implementation of communism has failed to produce a lasting, prosperous nation. Wikipedia's list of 20th century communist states reads like a list of places not to live.
Cuba is stable, and has done alright considering the embargoes. Yugoslavia had a good regime for a while and a decent living. China is stable, and their transitioning has many other motives.
Also, many countries with a capatalist system are absolute shit holes. The Philipines. Nice to visit but horrible to live in. Jaimaca is incredible to visit but not so good to live in. Fuck, South central LA, The ghettos in detroit ect.. aren't nice places to live.
Many nations struggle with a lot of systems. A lot don't work out. It's not so much an indictment of the system, but the circumstances.
Take Democracy. It fails a lot, partly due to the US. They take a hardline stance against certain beleifs and governments and will over throw a democratic gov. that does not support the US interests and install dictatorships. Did democracy fail there?
Althrough I see your point. It's not just communism that makes those places shit holes. Just as it's not capatalism per se that makes some other places shit holes, but underlying issues. As well, the ideal of the communism systems are prevalent in many Socialist states and their nice places ot live. Canada, Norway, Iceland, France ect.... They lack the centralised economic planning but they have the focus on workers irghts. Does this mena socialism is more successful then Capatalism because it has more countries you want to live in?