I think it's something like 50% of Americans invest in the stock market.
But 30% control 70% of the stock market. Most Americans own very small amounts (less than $150,000).
In fact, most Americans make more from their wages than from the stock market. Of course, it is the opposite for the 30% that own most of the wealth (for them, they make almost nothing out of their salaries/wages, while investments account for the majority of their income).
I HIGHLY doubt that a "substantial" number of people rely on dividends for their retirement (or even when younger). I think a majority use debt (eg. bonds) instead. If you want something safe with constant returns (as retired people do), bonds are a better option. That's what I would do and I think that's what most people go for. That probably explains why the bond market is 10x the stock market.
As far as taxes are concerned, unless you are wealthy, the taxes you pay on your income is no different than when you were younger. I mean, the tax you paid when you were working and making $40,000 would be similar to the tax you pay if you received $40,000 in income from retirement funds. Usually people have smaller income when retired so the tax rate and the tax amount is even lower (unless you are wealthy of course). In addition, you don't pay things like payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, and things like that.
If you are a pure capitalist and want to eliminate taxes, just say it. Stop coming up with all sorts of bogus arguments...
Milton Friedman wants to cut taxes across the board (essentially reducing govt to what it would be under pure capitalism). I have no idea why he is attempting to use dividends vs capital gains to manipulate arguments.
The tax on dividends vs capital gains is largely irrelevant for everyone (except wealthy investors who don't want capital gains*). The reason companies don't pay dividends has little to do with the tax rate. Instead, companies don't pay dividends because they don't have enough cash flow. Only large, established corporations have lots of cash coming in. Hence they are the ones that pay dividends. The rest don't have enough to pay pack.
Furthermore, if what you are saying were true (which it isn't), companies would ALWAYS reinvest or buy back stock. That is, they will NEVER pay dividends. Yet, they DO pay dividends.
To sum up, even if dividend taxes were cut, it will have little impact on corporations. Only a few more will start paying dividends now (instead of reinvesting or buying back stock). For the most part, the ratio of those that pay dividends vs those that don't will remain similar.
(* This makes no sense either. From a financial point of view, capital gains, dividends, and stock buybacks are all the same. You can replicate dividends with an appreciating stock. For example, if you want 5% return, you can simply sell the right amount of your (appreciating) stock every year to get 5% cash.)
What I am talking about is a hypothetical scenario. I am not saying that the US military is going to start jailing people tomorrow. Having said that...
The US military is unlike many militaries: It is all volunteer, it is multi-racial, multi-cultural, and comes from all strata of american society. It also has a sizable percentage of members who are not career soldiers... they are only serving a stint to get their college money, etc. Many are also "citizen-soldiers"... reservists and Guard of various types. The US military is unlikely to act against US society, because it's drawn from, and represents a broad cross-section of, that same society.
The Reserves and Guards are somewhat different from other militaries (although it's somewhat questionable if they are indeed different given that USA right now is using them as regular forces). However, the rest can be said for any military. Practically all militaries are drawn from across the spectrum.
I've actually had this conversation with other officers and enlisted men... our concensus was not only "no," but "Hell no!" If ordered to wantonly slaughter their own people, US soldiers would either refuse, remove their bars/oak-leaves/stripes, or immediately turn on and arrest whoever issued that order.
It's not as simple when the situation arises. Right now you may say something but when you are in the thick of it, it'll be difficult. You would be in a situation similar to WWII, with the internment of Japanese Americans. The military will be the entity that will facilitate and carry out such actions. Except now, I'm talking about actual torture and death (kind of like what the Nazi soldiers ended up doing). Once you have racism and possibly fascism what seem unthinkable would be easy.
Let's also not forget that USA HAS used the military against its people, although not to the degree we are talking about. Examples such as Wounded Knee, Waco, and others come to mind. In a recent case like Waco, for example, the US goverment actually deployed tanks (hence, the military). Waco was total joke (in terms of the severity) yet the military was deployed...
Also, there is the small matter of illegal orders... those soldiers in Iraq that stated that they were "just following orders" are going to twist in the wind. A soldier is OBLIGATED to disobey an order he knows to be illegal or unlawful.
As far as the Iraqi torture situation is concerned, I think it is all due to intelligence officers (such as CIA and Military Intelligence). Only agents would know anything about torture. I'm pretty sure that what happened was the fault of the CIA. The soldiers, as always, are just pawns. CIA has usually used foreign soldiers (in Latin America, Middle East, etc) to carry out torture. Except this time, they used American soldiers and made them do something they typically don't do...
So you think Cliton hates the military? Or are you just so biased against his administration? Conversely, so does Bush love the military?
As far as the rest of your comment is concerned, I am not saying that there are ZERO intellectuals or "smart" people in the military. I am not saying that. What I AM saying is that the military in nearly all countries are made up of lower classes. There are hardly anyone from the top schools for example. This is not to say that there are zero (after all, more than one dead is listed on the walls of these schools (walls shows those that died in service)). My point, however, is about the general population.
If you really don't believe that the military is disproportionately made up of lower classes, I can find stats to back it up. I know for a fact that blacks and Latinos make up more than their share. There are very few millionaries in the military. Also, I can't remember the number but I think there are less than 5 members of Congress (and maybe includes Senate) who have family members who have served in the military. And lastly, almost no one from MIT, Berkeley, Yale, etc join the military. If you want proof, just ask and I'll look it up.
If USA starts conscripting (which could very well happen in one year), you will hear the stats that I have referenced. Already, some politicians are calling for the draft.
I am not saying that the military personnel are smart or dumb or anything like that. All I'm saying is that the vast majority simply join for economic and other reasons.
There are VERY FEW people who believe that someone should never go to war. I'll bet you have never met such a person, because they are a tiny minority of the population in any country. The only people who are against war at all times are pacifists. In general, only religious people are pacifists.
Having said that, there are many people who are GENERALLY against war. I think these are the people you are talking about. These people range in ideologies but are generally called non-interventionists. A good example of a non-interventionist in a libertarian (both left and right). These people are against all war except self-defense.
The rest are basically just "anti-war supporters" and pick and choose wars (you clearly are not talking about these people).
You clearly don't belong to either of these camps. My impression is that you support wars (although you seem to be unhappy with the Iraq war due to some minor points). You don't have to support a non-intervention, pacifist, or anti-war stance... but know that you are warmonger.
As far as *I* am concerned... My position on war is very close to the non-interventionist position (if you want to know why, I can elaborate). I am generally against war but would support self-defense. In my opinion, the vast majority of wars (probably 95%+) have nothing to do with self-defense*. Therefore I am against the vast majority of wars. For instance, I am against practically all wars USA has waged in the last 30 or 40 years (since most of them are imperial wars which have nothing to do with defense). Even though I'm a leftist, I also do not support the general "humanitarian intervention" wars waged by clueless liberals.
(* Of course, I'm just talking about the side that initiates war)
Actually there WAS a controversy over retouching in another less-reported incident: Boudreaux case. This was basically a case where some solider was posing with some Iraiq kids holding up some deragotary sign. You can check out the story behind it here. There were multiple similar-looking but different images floating around the web. So there was a controversy over the accuracy of the picture...
See, the difference between you and the so-called "idiots" that you refer to (I guess I would be one:) ) is that you support the war and they don't. There isn't anything in what you say that is strongly against the war.
The Halliburton connection is weak and has little to do with the war per se. It certainly wouldn't stop the war or have changed it any meaningful way. As far as not bringing up other arguments (like WMD) the thing is that they WERE brought up. It's just that the warmongers keep changing their views. One day it's because Saddam is an imminent threat; then it's about bogus terrorist connections; next day it's about WMD; then it was violation of UN protocols;...; and now it's about "democracy" or some such thing.
The original guy was a troll (clearly insensitive and rude). In any case, I disagree with the following: ...if it wasn't for those troops (and thousands of others like them) protecting your rights, you wouldn't be writing such trollish rants in this forum.
That's what military guys always say (since that has been drilled into you guys) but consider this. If you look at history, you'll find that the military has generally opressed their citizens more so than anyone else. Was it not the German military that was killing Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc during WWII? Was it not the Red Army that killed millions in USSR? And so on...
I will guarantee you that if USA (or any other country for that matter) switches to totalitarianism (could happen due to the bogus "war" on terrorism), the military will end up killing more Americans than any foreign military or terrorist or whatever.
Military cannot protect any rights because it is the military wing of the government--and governments generally kill more civilians than foreign elements. Rights come from protestors, activists dissenting, citizens standing up, and so on. Expecting the military to protect rights is like a black man calling for the US military to protect his equality rights in the 1910's...
That quote is fake (it's not from Kissinger)... but it accurately sums up what Kissinger has done by using soldiers as pawns in his game, just like how the Bush administration (and the neo-consevatives) have done*.
(* This criticism is not limited to Bush. Clinton and others in the past have done the same thing)
Military isn't about killing per se (if it were, militaries would simply destroy their opponents using nuclear weapons), but you can't deny the fact that is an institution whose whole purpose is to use force. This essentially means that the military is the strong arm of the goverment--nothing more, nothing less. If politicians could summon some superbeings or robots to defend them, there wouldn't even be the military.
The deeds that you mention (rebuilding, providing food, etc) are indeed good. However, that is not your purpose. If there were no war, you wouldn't even be doing that. In addition, in many cases, you are simply rebuliding what you have destroyed. Take Iraq for example. What is exactly being rebuilt? The vast majority of it is stuff that you bombed, or were damaged through sanctions in the past. If you go and rebuild a power plant (good), it is only because you went and bombed it (bad). On top of all that, all this rebuilding/humanitarian assistance/etc is nothing more than simply recyling US taxpayer money and looted Iraqi reserves to a few connected entities.
Obviously, if you were a peacekeeper (eg. UN blue helmets) it would be a different thing. But I don't think we are talking about peacekeeping here (since Iraq has nothing to do with that, and USA is arguably incapable of peacekeeping).
To the survivors of some of the places I and some of my fellow soldiers have been deployed to, when option a) was continuing to be collectively abused and repressed by violent thugs, and option b) was for soldiers to drive them away, clear the roads of landmines, and allow the NGOs to start rebuilding their country, the benefits were far more direct and tangible, than inventing a cure for cancer.
The fallacy in your thinking is that you are ignoring the initial conditions. Namely, if there wasn't a war, or if you didn't bomb something in the first place, you wouldn't be rebuilding anything.
The military is nothing but a tool for a government to use, and if you don't like how your government uses your military, and you have the luxury of living in some form of democracy, take a good hard look at yourself, and the government you elected.
THat's true. That's why I say that the Abu Garrib situation is a direct fault of Rumsfeld, CIA, and other senior people. As the ICRC said, this isn't some isolated incident. There is deep systematic abuse being condoned by the military, against its own code.
Although there are pertubations, democratic countries generally get the quality of government they ask for.
A lot of people say that (in fact, Benjamin Franklin said it I think) but I STRONGLY disagree with your view. What you are saying may make some sense if people were living under democracies. Unfortunately, contrary to what everyone is led to believe, there isn't a democracy in the world. Instead, what you have are plutocracies (USA), kleptocracy (India), tyranny (Zimbabwe), oligarchy (Russia last decade), and so forth. Let's also not forget less than 70% of the people vote in many elections, the majority are brainwashed by the govt (often by television advertising), and so forth. That is hardly a democratic environment. A country would be democratic if some guy off the street can become president/prime minister/whatever. Right now, that is not hte case so it isn't a democracy at all.
In addition, there is another reason I disagree with your assertion. If people elect some dictator or some tyrant who starts killing people, do the people deserve that? You are saying yes. I would say no. Even if some guy is elected, the guy is responsible. It doesn't matter if 90% of the people voted for him. Voting is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Given that 90% of the wars have nothing to do with freedom (if you want to discuss, I can elaborate), where does that leave you? Or do you think invading Iraq, which did not attack USA at all, somehow magically brings freedom from the freedom fairy?
As far as the people in the military being bad or evil, they are not. However, you can't deny the fact that the majority of the them are lower classes. I can back this up. Practically no one from the wealthy classes, intellectual classes, and so forth join the military (this has been true for hundreads of years). What this does is that it skews the personnel in the military.
Furthermore, a lot of those in the military are young. You are basically talking about people who are from high-school or thereabouts. Young are often naive, impressionable, and clueless about the world. This essentially means that most soldiers (in any country!) are just blindly following orders with little independent thought.
I'm not dissing the military per se, since there are many smart guys there. However, your argument is weak. It is probably correct in the sense that the majority of hte population does not have university degrees, whereas most military people get free college/university degress (albeit military-oriented). However, the majority of the "smart" or intellectual people are not part of the military. If you don't believe me, check out how many people from the top schools (MIT, Yale, Harvard, etc) join the military. You'll find practically none (only a few). Similarly, check out all the top scientists, executives, capitalists, etc and you'll find that there are few from the military.
The right wing does not want to admit it but the fact of the matter is that majority of the people in military are the lower classes. These are people from rural areas, or poor neighbourhoods, or dysfunctional families. They are just in it for the money. It is not a coincidence that blacks and Latinos (two of the poorest groups in USA) are over-represented in the military.
Anyone who is "smart" enough or rich enough go to universities/colleges/etc ends up going. Those that can't end up joining the military.
Obviously you haven't grasped the concept that humans progress. Once upon a time, sticking a guy's head on a stick was perfectly valid, not to mention turning people into slaves, or mass raping women. They were all accepted at one time. Now, they are not. Even the worst countries don't turn people into slaves (at least not in the historical manner). You, obviously, is living in the past.
Furthermore, international conventions have changed. It is clear that you have not heard of the Geneva Conventions, or various other POW norms. This is not to say that everything is clean, or that everyone follows the Geneva Conventions. However, those are the rules. The atrocities committed at Abu Garib is also against US military laws (you know, laws made by the US government--not some foreign govt or the UN or whatever).
The images shown during World War II was far more brutal than you think. In fact, images were one of the things used to turn public opinion in favour of war...As far as the civil war is concerned, it had little to do with slavery. Maybe if it was all about slavery, I might support it. Given that it wasn't, it was just a waste of deaths--just like most wars are...
I don't know about your friend but there ARE some firms partaking in torture and various abuses. If you read some of the stories, you would realize that there were a few more "civilians" that were part of it (these guys haven't been charged). Search Google News or your favourite news source for CACI International and various other firms. Here is a story on what I'm talking about.
What you are saying is true for hte most part: most of the private companies are simply transporting goods or providing security. However, some firms are doing more than that, including torture, killings, etc.
Capitalism is what built this country (USA) and its what makes America great.
That's not correct. What built USA was trade. If you don't believe me, look it up. USA was the wealthiest country by the late 1800's all because of trade. It had little to do with capitalism. Furthermore, 90% of what is considered capitalism did not even exist back then. For instance, capital markets (like stock markets) either did not exist or were for the most part minor. The symbol of capitalism, the corporation, also did not exist back then--at least in the same manner.
Lastly--and most importantly--the capitalism that you cherish will also bring you down. You'll just label me a fool but let's just wait and see. I predict that capitalism will collapse (probably) within our lifetimes. The 2nd richest country in the world, USA, has trillions of dollars in debt. USA will never be able to pay it off, just like how all other capitalist countries (which is pretty much 90% of the world) will not either. You don't need to believe... just worship the system until you get crushed by it.
You guys in India tried socialism under the Congress Party for decades and manged to run the country to the ground and confine most of the Indian population to unberable poverty, very little growth, and little or no progress.
I'm not from India but anyway... India was hardly ever socialist. The closest it came to was during Gandhi's time. After that, it never came back to it. India has been nothing more than a kleptocracy where the rich and powerful ruled over the poor. This is still true. In the past it was mostly due to religion (and caste systems); now it is mostly due to corruption.
I can see why you would consider India to be socialist due to massive US government propaganda initiated at that time. I'll guarantee you that if India did not stay a non-aligned state, it would have been considered a capitalist state that is a model for Asia. After all, isn't it kind of odd how Pakistan was considered more capitalist a few decades ago even though there was literally no difference between India and Pakistan (if anything, India was more capitalist back then than Pakistan due to more foreign trade).
Obviously you are someone that probably relies more on government propaganda, and so-called "business experts" than reality. The poverty and troubles faced by India has been there for a long time. It is mostly due to the past and colonialism and has little to do with the Congress Party. Even the BJP, who rule now, have done almost nothing to the povery levels, or the rising HIV infections, and so forth. What has changed now is that the capitalists are behind India. India's BPO and software industry is doing well so everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Overall, this has little impact on the country as a whole. I'm not saying this is bad but it is hardly the solution to all the problems.
India is basically the capitalist poster boy, kind of like Argentina was. You remember ARgentina right? How it was plastered all over the front of business magazines? And how "top" economists from USA were spearheading the reforms there? Well, it all fell apart. If anything, the capitalists have ignored it completely and claim they had nothing to do with it. Supposedly, Argentina's corruption was the cause of all the undoing (kind of funny how anyone can seriously consider that given that the same magazines made no mention of it in the early 90's). Well, India will probably face the same thing. It is a larger country and has historically been more independent (although nowadays it isn't) so it remains to be seen. I will guarantee you that in 15 or 20 years, India will be totally ignored and the capitalism that was doing wonders will be nonexistent. The so-called "progress" which basically accrues to the capitalists will just dissapear along with the capitalists.
The fact that India is growing faster now, and living standards in India are finally going up is due in no small measure to Indi
Ancient people were closer to anarchism than anything. For instance, many ancient people collectively owned things (private property was basically non-existent) and there was very few laws/regulations/etc.
A bit later on, I would say it would be closer to monarchy/oligarchy or something like that. A few, usually under decree by God or priviledge, ruled. Peasents basically had no property rights and the monarchs would seize anything that they wanted (law was on their side).
I really don't think it is accurate consider the past as capitalism. For instance, how can it seriously be capitalism when the peasents had no rights whatsoever (except for some bogus rights to placate the masses)?
I personally consider econopolitical systems such as communism, capitalism, fascism, etc to be modern. Certain elements of these systems have always existed but the full system was never conceptualized back then. I think most people, including me, consider capitalism to have started with Adam Smith. Anything before that is not capitalism. The reason is pretty simple. Yes, some dude "owned" things but if the king could come and take it away from you LEGALLY then that isn't capitalism. Systems like communism also did not exist back then because no one formalized a central entity owning things, not to mention the fact that it was impractical back then.
So to sum all this up, I disagree with your view:) It is misleading to consider the past to have anything to do with capitalism. However, I agree with your point that certain elements or traits of capitalism (say markets) did exist back then. But such elements is not sufficient for me to consider society to be capitalist...
Digital cable is well worth it IF the digital box was free (which it clearly isn't). Each channel costs around $2 (5 for $10 deal) so it isn't so bad. But when you have the digital box rental fee, it kind of makes it not worth it.
Some of the digital channels are pretty good. Obviously it depends on what you like watching but they are ok IMO. For example, I can see history/anthropology fans liking the National Geographic or History channel. Or nature/animal fans liking one of the two animal channels. If you are a movie fan, some of the movie channels are ok too (although they aren't new movies or anything). I mean, where else can you get kung-fu/blaxploitation films? When I (and my parents) subscribed to a bunch of channels, I really liked IFC (indie films) and BBC World (somewhat different).
Don't worry. Everything is ok for now.... You'll know you are in a totalitarian state when the government shows up WITHOUT you requesting the information. USA isn't there yet...:(
I have nothing against the journalist so don't take my comment in that manner... This just goes to show how much power the capitalists have over everything. I can guarantee you that he has the impact that he does simply because WSJ is read by investors and executives.
I'm wondering how many of the Slashdot crowd actually watched Tech TV?
I never subscribed to it, over here in Canada, but watched the free promotional period. It was certainly different from the typical stuff on mainstream tech shows. I wasn't a big fan of the channel since I am not into tech as much as the rest of you here.
I guess this is the last remnant of the dot-com boom:( I still think there is room for a technology-oriented television channel but not yet. I don't know about USA but here in Canada, Tech TV was a digital channel so until digital boxes are almost standard, I don't expect these digital channels to take off...
It IS accurate to consider IRC as underground, and the world wide web as the mainstream. Apart from the fact that the mainstream crowd has never heard of IRC, there are many more underground stuff happening. I don't know about sex-related stuff but there is definitely more software/music/movie/etc piracy.
The internet world is just immitating the "real" world. Just like how the mainstream knows nothing about illegal drugs/guns/satellite dishes/etc that can be purchased in the underground, they also know nothing of IRC. You know... 90% of the population probably never even knows where the underground black market for a particular product is--they never come into contact. Similarly, 90% of hte population probably never ever comes in contact with IRC...
As someone below mentions, trade has nothing to do with capitalism. Free markets aren't necessarily capitalism either. As you mentioned, 2000 years ago you had markets where goods were traded but no one considers that as capitalism...
Capitalism is a collection of philsophies and ideals. If I had to give a quick definition, I would say capitalism is an ECONOMIC system with FREE MARKETS and PRIVATE PROPERTY. The existence of free markets doesn't mean capitalism if private property didn't exist (as was the case thousands of years ago); conversely having private property without free markets (as was the case a few hundread years ago under merchantilism) isn't capitalism either...
So overall, I think your definition of capitalism is not correct. Your view is too vague. I mean, under your view, one can easily say that the world was always capitalist, just like how the world was always socialist and anarchist and so forth. YEt most people, including me, don't look at it that way. To me, capitalism started a few hundread years ago and the world, particularly countries like USA, are more capitalist than they ever were.
BTW, Laissez Faire capitalism is indeed capitalism. If anything, it is closer to pure capitalism than any other type.
Washington Post is a conservative paper that tries to be liberal... They are also strongly pro-government (probably because most of their "stories" come from government insiders)...
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's something like 50% of Americans invest in the stock market.
But 30% control 70% of the stock market. Most Americans own very small amounts (less than $150,000).
In fact, most Americans make more from their wages than from the stock market. Of course, it is the opposite for the 30% that own most of the wealth (for them, they make almost nothing out of their salaries/wages, while investments account for the majority of their income).
I HIGHLY doubt that a "substantial" number of people rely on dividends for their retirement (or even when younger). I think a majority use debt (eg. bonds) instead. If you want something safe with constant returns (as retired people do), bonds are a better option. That's what I would do and I think that's what most people go for. That probably explains why the bond market is 10x the stock market.
As far as taxes are concerned, unless you are wealthy, the taxes you pay on your income is no different than when you were younger. I mean, the tax you paid when you were working and making $40,000 would be similar to the tax you pay if you received $40,000 in income from retirement funds. Usually people have smaller income when retired so the tax rate and the tax amount is even lower (unless you are wealthy of course). In addition, you don't pay things like payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, and things like that.
If you are a pure capitalist and want to eliminate taxes, just say it. Stop coming up with all sorts of bogus arguments...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is just opinion but here it goes...
Milton Friedman wants to cut taxes across the board (essentially reducing govt to what it would be under pure capitalism). I have no idea why he is attempting to use dividends vs capital gains to manipulate arguments.
The tax on dividends vs capital gains is largely irrelevant for everyone (except wealthy investors who don't want capital gains*). The reason companies don't pay dividends has little to do with the tax rate. Instead, companies don't pay dividends because they don't have enough cash flow. Only large, established corporations have lots of cash coming in. Hence they are the ones that pay dividends. The rest don't have enough to pay pack.
Furthermore, if what you are saying were true (which it isn't), companies would ALWAYS reinvest or buy back stock. That is, they will NEVER pay dividends. Yet, they DO pay dividends.
To sum up, even if dividend taxes were cut, it will have little impact on corporations. Only a few more will start paying dividends now (instead of reinvesting or buying back stock). For the most part, the ratio of those that pay dividends vs those that don't will remain similar.
(* This makes no sense either. From a financial point of view, capital gains, dividends, and stock buybacks are all the same. You can replicate dividends with an appreciating stock. For example, if you want 5% return, you can simply sell the right amount of your (appreciating) stock every year to get 5% cash.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What I am talking about is a hypothetical scenario. I am not saying that the US military is going to start jailing people tomorrow. Having said that...
The US military is unlike many militaries: It is all volunteer, it is multi-racial, multi-cultural, and comes from all strata of american society. It also has a sizable percentage of members who are not career soldiers... they are only serving a stint to get their college money, etc. Many are also "citizen-soldiers"... reservists and Guard of various types. The US military is unlikely to act against US society, because it's drawn from, and represents a broad cross-section of, that same society.
The Reserves and Guards are somewhat different from other militaries (although it's somewhat questionable if they are indeed different given that USA right now is using them as regular forces). However, the rest can be said for any military. Practically all militaries are drawn from across the spectrum.
I've actually had this conversation with other officers and enlisted men... our concensus was not only "no," but "Hell no!" If ordered to wantonly slaughter their own people, US soldiers would either refuse, remove their bars/oak-leaves/stripes, or immediately turn on and arrest whoever issued that order.
It's not as simple when the situation arises. Right now you may say something but when you are in the thick of it, it'll be difficult. You would be in a situation similar to WWII, with the internment of Japanese Americans. The military will be the entity that will facilitate and carry out such actions. Except now, I'm talking about actual torture and death (kind of like what the Nazi soldiers ended up doing). Once you have racism and possibly fascism what seem unthinkable would be easy.
Let's also not forget that USA HAS used the military against its people, although not to the degree we are talking about. Examples such as Wounded Knee, Waco, and others come to mind. In a recent case like Waco, for example, the US goverment actually deployed tanks (hence, the military). Waco was total joke (in terms of the severity) yet the military was deployed...
Also, there is the small matter of illegal orders... those soldiers in Iraq that stated that they were "just following orders" are going to twist in the wind. A soldier is OBLIGATED to disobey an order he knows to be illegal or unlawful.
As far as the Iraqi torture situation is concerned, I think it is all due to intelligence officers (such as CIA and Military Intelligence). Only agents would know anything about torture. I'm pretty sure that what happened was the fault of the CIA. The soldiers, as always, are just pawns. CIA has usually used foreign soldiers (in Latin America, Middle East, etc) to carry out torture. Except this time, they used American soldiers and made them do something they typically don't do...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So you think Cliton hates the military? Or are you just so biased against his administration? Conversely, so does Bush love the military?
As far as the rest of your comment is concerned, I am not saying that there are ZERO intellectuals or "smart" people in the military. I am not saying that. What I AM saying is that the military in nearly all countries are made up of lower classes. There are hardly anyone from the top schools for example. This is not to say that there are zero (after all, more than one dead is listed on the walls of these schools (walls shows those that died in service)). My point, however, is about the general population.
If you really don't believe that the military is disproportionately made up of lower classes, I can find stats to back it up. I know for a fact that blacks and Latinos make up more than their share. There are very few millionaries in the military. Also, I can't remember the number but I think there are less than 5 members of Congress (and maybe includes Senate) who have family members who have served in the military. And lastly, almost no one from MIT, Berkeley, Yale, etc join the military. If you want proof, just ask and I'll look it up.
If USA starts conscripting (which could very well happen in one year), you will hear the stats that I have referenced. Already, some politicians are calling for the draft.
I am not saying that the military personnel are smart or dumb or anything like that. All I'm saying is that the vast majority simply join for economic and other reasons.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There are VERY FEW people who believe that someone should never go to war. I'll bet you have never met such a person, because they are a tiny minority of the population in any country. The only people who are against war at all times are pacifists. In general, only religious people are pacifists.
Having said that, there are many people who are GENERALLY against war. I think these are the people you are talking about. These people range in ideologies but are generally called non-interventionists. A good example of a non-interventionist in a libertarian (both left and right). These people are against all war except self-defense.
The rest are basically just "anti-war supporters" and pick and choose wars (you clearly are not talking about these people).
You clearly don't belong to either of these camps. My impression is that you support wars (although you seem to be unhappy with the Iraq war due to some minor points). You don't have to support a non-intervention, pacifist, or anti-war stance... but know that you are warmonger.
As far as *I* am concerned... My position on war is very close to the non-interventionist position (if you want to know why, I can elaborate). I am generally against war but would support self-defense. In my opinion, the vast majority of wars (probably 95%+) have nothing to do with self-defense*. Therefore I am against the vast majority of wars. For instance, I am against practically all wars USA has waged in the last 30 or 40 years (since most of them are imperial wars which have nothing to do with defense). Even though I'm a leftist, I also do not support the general "humanitarian intervention" wars waged by clueless liberals.
(* Of course, I'm just talking about the side that initiates war)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually there WAS a controversy over retouching in another less-reported incident: Boudreaux case. This was basically a case where some solider was posing with some Iraiq kids holding up some deragotary sign. You can check out the story behind it here. There were multiple similar-looking but different images floating around the web. So there was a controversy over the accuracy of the picture...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
See, the difference between you and the so-called "idiots" that you refer to (I guess I would be one :) ) is that you support the war and they don't. There isn't anything in what you say that is strongly against the war.
...; and now it's about "democracy" or some such thing.
The Halliburton connection is weak and has little to do with the war per se. It certainly wouldn't stop the war or have changed it any meaningful way. As far as not bringing up other arguments (like WMD) the thing is that they WERE brought up. It's just that the warmongers keep changing their views. One day it's because Saddam is an imminent threat; then it's about bogus terrorist connections; next day it's about WMD; then it was violation of UN protocols;
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The original guy was a troll (clearly insensitive and rude). In any case, I disagree with the following:
...if it wasn't for those troops (and thousands of others like them) protecting your rights, you wouldn't be writing such trollish rants in this forum.
That's what military guys always say (since that has been drilled into you guys) but consider this. If you look at history, you'll find that the military has generally opressed their citizens more so than anyone else. Was it not the German military that was killing Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc during WWII? Was it not the Red Army that killed millions in USSR? And so on...
I will guarantee you that if USA (or any other country for that matter) switches to totalitarianism (could happen due to the bogus "war" on terrorism), the military will end up killing more Americans than any foreign military or terrorist or whatever.
Military cannot protect any rights because it is the military wing of the government--and governments generally kill more civilians than foreign elements. Rights come from protestors, activists dissenting, citizens standing up, and so on. Expecting the military to protect rights is like a black man calling for the US military to protect his equality rights in the 1910's...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You missed the poster's point.
That quote is fake (it's not from Kissinger)... but it accurately sums up what Kissinger has done by using soldiers as pawns in his game, just like how the Bush administration (and the neo-consevatives) have done*.
(* This criticism is not limited to Bush. Clinton and others in the past have done the same thing)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Military isn't about killing per se (if it were, militaries would simply destroy their opponents using nuclear weapons), but you can't deny the fact that is an institution whose whole purpose is to use force. This essentially means that the military is the strong arm of the goverment--nothing more, nothing less. If politicians could summon some superbeings or robots to defend them, there wouldn't even be the military.
The deeds that you mention (rebuilding, providing food, etc) are indeed good. However, that is not your purpose. If there were no war, you wouldn't even be doing that. In addition, in many cases, you are simply rebuliding what you have destroyed. Take Iraq for example. What is exactly being rebuilt? The vast majority of it is stuff that you bombed, or were damaged through sanctions in the past. If you go and rebuild a power plant (good), it is only because you went and bombed it (bad). On top of all that, all this rebuilding/humanitarian assistance/etc is nothing more than simply recyling US taxpayer money and looted Iraqi reserves to a few connected entities.
Obviously, if you were a peacekeeper (eg. UN blue helmets) it would be a different thing. But I don't think we are talking about peacekeeping here (since Iraq has nothing to do with that, and USA is arguably incapable of peacekeeping).
To the survivors of some of the places I and some of my fellow soldiers have been deployed to, when option a) was continuing to be collectively abused and repressed by violent thugs, and option b) was for soldiers to drive them away, clear the roads of landmines, and allow the NGOs to start rebuilding their country, the benefits were far more direct and tangible, than inventing a cure for cancer.
The fallacy in your thinking is that you are ignoring the initial conditions. Namely, if there wasn't a war, or if you didn't bomb something in the first place, you wouldn't be rebuilding anything.
The military is nothing but a tool for a government to use, and if you don't like how your government uses your military, and you have the luxury of living in some form of democracy, take a good hard look at yourself, and the government you elected.
THat's true. That's why I say that the Abu Garrib situation is a direct fault of Rumsfeld, CIA, and other senior people. As the ICRC said, this isn't some isolated incident. There is deep systematic abuse being condoned by the military, against its own code.
Although there are pertubations, democratic countries generally get the quality of government they ask for.
A lot of people say that (in fact, Benjamin Franklin said it I think) but I STRONGLY disagree with your view. What you are saying may make some sense if people were living under democracies. Unfortunately, contrary to what everyone is led to believe, there isn't a democracy in the world. Instead, what you have are plutocracies (USA), kleptocracy (India), tyranny (Zimbabwe), oligarchy (Russia last decade), and so forth. Let's also not forget less than 70% of the people vote in many elections, the majority are brainwashed by the govt (often by television advertising), and so forth. That is hardly a democratic environment. A country would be democratic if some guy off the street can become president/prime minister/whatever. Right now, that is not hte case so it isn't a democracy at all.
In addition, there is another reason I disagree with your assertion. If people elect some dictator or some tyrant who starts killing people, do the people deserve that? You are saying yes. I would say no. Even if some guy is elected, the guy is responsible. It doesn't matter if 90% of the people voted for him. Voting is totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Given that 90% of the wars have nothing to do with freedom (if you want to discuss, I can elaborate), where does that leave you? Or do you think invading Iraq, which did not attack USA at all, somehow magically brings freedom from the freedom fairy?
As far as the people in the military being bad or evil, they are not. However, you can't deny the fact that the majority of the them are lower classes. I can back this up. Practically no one from the wealthy classes, intellectual classes, and so forth join the military (this has been true for hundreads of years). What this does is that it skews the personnel in the military.
Furthermore, a lot of those in the military are young. You are basically talking about people who are from high-school or thereabouts. Young are often naive, impressionable, and clueless about the world. This essentially means that most soldiers (in any country!) are just blindly following orders with little independent thought.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not dissing the military per se, since there are many smart guys there. However, your argument is weak. It is probably correct in the sense that the majority of hte population does not have university degrees, whereas most military people get free college/university degress (albeit military-oriented). However, the majority of the "smart" or intellectual people are not part of the military. If you don't believe me, check out how many people from the top schools (MIT, Yale, Harvard, etc) join the military. You'll find practically none (only a few). Similarly, check out all the top scientists, executives, capitalists, etc and you'll find that there are few from the military.
The right wing does not want to admit it but the fact of the matter is that majority of the people in military are the lower classes. These are people from rural areas, or poor neighbourhoods, or dysfunctional families. They are just in it for the money. It is not a coincidence that blacks and Latinos (two of the poorest groups in USA) are over-represented in the military.
Anyone who is "smart" enough or rich enough go to universities/colleges/etc ends up going. Those that can't end up joining the military.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Obviously you haven't grasped the concept that humans progress. Once upon a time, sticking a guy's head on a stick was perfectly valid, not to mention turning people into slaves, or mass raping women. They were all accepted at one time. Now, they are not. Even the worst countries don't turn people into slaves (at least not in the historical manner). You, obviously, is living in the past.
Furthermore, international conventions have changed. It is clear that you have not heard of the Geneva Conventions, or various other POW norms. This is not to say that everything is clean, or that everyone follows the Geneva Conventions. However, those are the rules. The atrocities committed at Abu Garib is also against US military laws (you know, laws made by the US government--not some foreign govt or the UN or whatever).
The images shown during World War II was far more brutal than you think. In fact, images were one of the things used to turn public opinion in favour of war...As far as the civil war is concerned, it had little to do with slavery. Maybe if it was all about slavery, I might support it. Given that it wasn't, it was just a waste of deaths--just like most wars are...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Obviously you have no regard to human rights. Accepting "certain people's psyche may be trampled upon' just proves it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know about your friend but there ARE some firms partaking in torture and various abuses. If you read some of the stories, you would realize that there were a few more "civilians" that were part of it (these guys haven't been charged). Search Google News or your favourite news source for CACI International and various other firms. Here is a story on what I'm talking about.
What you are saying is true for hte most part: most of the private companies are simply transporting goods or providing security. However, some firms are doing more than that, including torture, killings, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Capitalism is what built this country (USA) and its what makes America great.
That's not correct. What built USA was trade. If you don't believe me, look it up. USA was the wealthiest country by the late 1800's all because of trade. It had little to do with capitalism. Furthermore, 90% of what is considered capitalism did not even exist back then. For instance, capital markets (like stock markets) either did not exist or were for the most part minor. The symbol of capitalism, the corporation, also did not exist back then--at least in the same manner.
Lastly--and most importantly--the capitalism that you cherish will also bring you down. You'll just label me a fool but let's just wait and see. I predict that capitalism will collapse (probably) within our lifetimes. The 2nd richest country in the world, USA, has trillions of dollars in debt. USA will never be able to pay it off, just like how all other capitalist countries (which is pretty much 90% of the world) will not either. You don't need to believe... just worship the system until you get crushed by it.
You guys in India tried socialism under the Congress Party for decades and manged to run the country to the ground and confine most of the Indian population to unberable poverty, very little growth, and little or no progress.
I'm not from India but anyway... India was hardly ever socialist. The closest it came to was during Gandhi's time. After that, it never came back to it. India has been nothing more than a kleptocracy where the rich and powerful ruled over the poor. This is still true. In the past it was mostly due to religion (and caste systems); now it is mostly due to corruption.
I can see why you would consider India to be socialist due to massive US government propaganda initiated at that time. I'll guarantee you that if India did not stay a non-aligned state, it would have been considered a capitalist state that is a model for Asia. After all, isn't it kind of odd how Pakistan was considered more capitalist a few decades ago even though there was literally no difference between India and Pakistan (if anything, India was more capitalist back then than Pakistan due to more foreign trade).
Obviously you are someone that probably relies more on government propaganda, and so-called "business experts" than reality. The poverty and troubles faced by India has been there for a long time. It is mostly due to the past and colonialism and has little to do with the Congress Party. Even the BJP, who rule now, have done almost nothing to the povery levels, or the rising HIV infections, and so forth. What has changed now is that the capitalists are behind India. India's BPO and software industry is doing well so everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Overall, this has little impact on the country as a whole. I'm not saying this is bad but it is hardly the solution to all the problems.
India is basically the capitalist poster boy, kind of like Argentina was. You remember ARgentina right? How it was plastered all over the front of business magazines? And how "top" economists from USA were spearheading the reforms there? Well, it all fell apart. If anything, the capitalists have ignored it completely and claim they had nothing to do with it. Supposedly, Argentina's corruption was the cause of all the undoing (kind of funny how anyone can seriously consider that given that the same magazines made no mention of it in the early 90's). Well, India will probably face the same thing. It is a larger country and has historically been more independent (although nowadays it isn't) so it remains to be seen. I will guarantee you that in 15 or 20 years, India will be totally ignored and the capitalism that was doing wonders will be nonexistent. The so-called "progress" which basically accrues to the capitalists will just dissapear along with the capitalists.
The fact that India is growing faster now, and living standards in India are finally going up is due in no small measure to Indi
Ancient people were closer to anarchism than anything. For instance, many ancient people collectively owned things (private property was basically non-existent) and there was very few laws/regulations/etc.
:) It is misleading to consider the past to have anything to do with capitalism. However, I agree with your point that certain elements or traits of capitalism (say markets) did exist back then. But such elements is not sufficient for me to consider society to be capitalist...
A bit later on, I would say it would be closer to monarchy/oligarchy or something like that. A few, usually under decree by God or priviledge, ruled. Peasents basically had no property rights and the monarchs would seize anything that they wanted (law was on their side).
I really don't think it is accurate consider the past as capitalism. For instance, how can it seriously be capitalism when the peasents had no rights whatsoever (except for some bogus rights to placate the masses)?
I personally consider econopolitical systems such as communism, capitalism, fascism, etc to be modern. Certain elements of these systems have always existed but the full system was never conceptualized back then. I think most people, including me, consider capitalism to have started with Adam Smith. Anything before that is not capitalism. The reason is pretty simple. Yes, some dude "owned" things but if the king could come and take it away from you LEGALLY then that isn't capitalism. Systems like communism also did not exist back then because no one formalized a central entity owning things, not to mention the fact that it was impractical back then.
So to sum all this up, I disagree with your view
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Digital cable is well worth it IF the digital box was free (which it clearly isn't). Each channel costs around $2 (5 for $10 deal) so it isn't so bad. But when you have the digital box rental fee, it kind of makes it not worth it.
Some of the digital channels are pretty good. Obviously it depends on what you like watching but they are ok IMO. For example, I can see history/anthropology fans liking the National Geographic or History channel. Or nature/animal fans liking one of the two animal channels. If you are a movie fan, some of the movie channels are ok too (although they aren't new movies or anything). I mean, where else can you get kung-fu/blaxploitation films? When I (and my parents) subscribed to a bunch of channels, I really liked IFC (indie films) and BBC World (somewhat different).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Don't worry. Everything is ok for now.... You'll know you are in a totalitarian state when the government shows up WITHOUT you requesting the information. USA isn't there yet... :(
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I have nothing against the journalist so don't take my comment in that manner... This just goes to show how much power the capitalists have over everything. I can guarantee you that he has the impact that he does simply because WSJ is read by investors and executives.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm wondering how many of the Slashdot crowd actually watched Tech TV?
:( I still think there is room for a technology-oriented television channel but not yet. I don't know about USA but here in Canada, Tech TV was a digital channel so until digital boxes are almost standard, I don't expect these digital channels to take off...
I never subscribed to it, over here in Canada, but watched the free promotional period. It was certainly different from the typical stuff on mainstream tech shows. I wasn't a big fan of the channel since I am not into tech as much as the rest of you here.
I guess this is the last remnant of the dot-com boom
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Haven't read the article but...
It IS accurate to consider IRC as underground, and the world wide web as the mainstream. Apart from the fact that the mainstream crowd has never heard of IRC, there are many more underground stuff happening. I don't know about sex-related stuff but there is definitely more software/music/movie/etc piracy.
The internet world is just immitating the "real" world. Just like how the mainstream knows nothing about illegal drugs/guns/satellite dishes/etc that can be purchased in the underground, they also know nothing of IRC. You know... 90% of the population probably never even knows where the underground black market for a particular product is--they never come into contact. Similarly, 90% of hte population probably never ever comes in contact with IRC...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
As someone below mentions, trade has nothing to do with capitalism. Free markets aren't necessarily capitalism either. As you mentioned, 2000 years ago you had markets where goods were traded but no one considers that as capitalism...
Capitalism is a collection of philsophies and ideals. If I had to give a quick definition, I would say capitalism is an ECONOMIC system with FREE MARKETS and PRIVATE PROPERTY. The existence of free markets doesn't mean capitalism if private property didn't exist (as was the case thousands of years ago); conversely having private property without free markets (as was the case a few hundread years ago under merchantilism) isn't capitalism either...
So overall, I think your definition of capitalism is not correct. Your view is too vague. I mean, under your view, one can easily say that the world was always capitalist, just like how the world was always socialist and anarchist and so forth. YEt most people, including me, don't look at it that way. To me, capitalism started a few hundread years ago and the world, particularly countries like USA, are more capitalist than they ever were.
BTW, Laissez Faire capitalism is indeed capitalism. If anything, it is closer to pure capitalism than any other type.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Washington Post is a conservative paper that tries to be liberal... They are also strongly pro-government (probably because most of their "stories" come from government insiders)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What inflation and consumer goods did to the USSR sophistry and plausible denyability are doing to the USA.
I don't get that... what does inflation have to do with USSR? And how are the first two examples similar to the latter two (relative to USA)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai