[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
I’ll use myself as an example: One of my firmly held beliefs is that the Great Depression was, contrary to popular belief, largely a product of Government intervention. I agree with Murray Rothbard’s assesment that,
“The guilt for the Great Depression must, at long last, be lifted from the shoulders of the free-market economy, and placed where it properly belongs: at the doors of politicians, bureaucrats, and the mass of “enlightened” economists. And in any other depression, past or future, the story will be the same.”
Libertarians are funny. Where did you get this “firm” belief? From a two-page article you read on lewrockwell?[/quote]
Ayn Rand, “Capitalism”, an article by Alan Greenspan don?t know the page numbers…
Cheap money that was pumped into the sytem that was on the verge of re-organising itself, build a bubble of speculation that burst with a much bigger impact than necessary…
But go ahead, blame capitalism, why not…
After all it does not work and governments are the most efficient organisations ever, which makes that version of the story extremely unlikely…
Funny how nobody has an opinion on brain surgery or rocket science, but everybody and his brother is an expert in economics…
It’s far more complicated than that. This is what you are fed by the elites in order to justify intervention - Iraq being the msot recent.
Take a look at U.S. intervention into countries and they overwhelmingly do worse.
What happened to the story that if Vietnam fell to the communists there would be a domino effect and eventually the Red Menace would take over the world? It never happened. In fact Southeast Asia has a pretty vibrant economy considering the amount of devastation that came from the U.S.
Also the people of Vietnam voted for the communists. But the U.S. couldn’t have it. They couldn’t have foreign people voting for the wrong guy instead of a U.S. puppet. Just like the situation today when the population of Palestines voted for Hamas. The U.S. couldn’t let an indegious population vote for the wrong guy. Talk about spreading democracy![/quote]
Yeah, I saw all those people voting WITH THEIR FEET, begging for us to take them with us.
Look, even if a bunch of people vote for someone who vows to destroy you, wouldn’t you somehow counter that or try? What happens when we allow very hostile governments into power? Can we say ‘Iran’? We also allowed North Korea to stand. Do you support that regime as well?
Now, you say that the SE peninsula is better because they now have a vibrant economy. What did they adopt to cause them to become ‘vibrant’? Capitalism!
I also think that quite a few Laotians and Cambodians might take exception to your interpretation of the ‘Domino’ effect. Can we say ‘Khmer Rouge’?
… They couldn’t have foreign people voting for the wrong guy instead of a U.S. puppet. Just like the situation today when the population of Palestines voted for Hamas. The U.S. couldn’t let an indegious population vote for the wrong guy. Talk about spreading democracy!
…[/quote]
You just gave an example that completely contradicted your case.
The US pushed democracy and let Hamas be elected even though we knew it was a possibility.
Ayn Rand, “Capitalism”, an article by Alan Greenspan don?t know the page numbers…
Cheap money that was pumped into the sytem that was on the verge of re-organising itself, build a bubble of speculation that burst with a much bigger impact than necessary…
But go ahead, blame capitalism, why not…"
Uhhh, perhaps you’d like to explain to me how disagreeing with “the Great Depression happened because of too much government intervention” equates to me being an anti-capitalist? It’s a little more complicated than that, which might come to a shock to most libertarians, who see only black and white. It had absolutely nothing to do with rampant speculation in the 20’s and libertarian Silent Cal’s refusal to do anything about it, nor the fact that the government refused to take action against unwise investing.
With the crash, the stampede for cash to meet margin calls, the run on the banks, and the wipeout of savings, one third of America’s money supply vanished. And the Federal Reserve did absolutely nothing to replace the lost lifeblood of the American economy.
That damn big government always fucking everything up! Or how about Hoover going out on speaking tours and telling the starving masses, “Everytime we find solutions outside of the government, we have not only strengthened our character, but we have preserved our sense of real government.”
Nice words, but words don’t feed empty bellies. Fortunately FDR came around and my 17-year-old grandfather was able to go to work in a CCC camp and feed his 4 teenaged sisters. (That being said, FDR also made tons of mistakes.) One of the main reasons the Depression lasted as long as it did was because once things got a little better people still refused to spend their money. Wealth was distributed in relatively few hands, and they didn’t circulate any money.
“Funny how nobody has an opinion on brain surgery or rocket science, but everybody and his brother is an expert in economics…”
Again, tell me where I said I was an expert? And what makes you an expert? Because you read Ayn Rand?
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
I’ll use myself as an example: One of my firmly held beliefs is that the Great Depression was, contrary to popular belief, largely a product of Government intervention. I agree with Murray Rothbard’s assesment that,
“The guilt for the Great Depression must, at long last, be lifted from the shoulders of the free-market economy, and placed where it properly belongs: at the doors of politicians, bureaucrats, and the mass of “enlightened” economists. And in any other depression, past or future, the story will be the same.”
Libertarians are funny. Where did you get this “firm” belief? From a two-page article you read on lewrockwell?[/quote]
Purhaps you missed it when I quoted Murray Rothbard? You know, Austrian School economist and author? Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize in economics), among others, has also infuenced me a great deal. This is really all besides the point because this isn’t a discussion about economics; I was merely using it as an example–and you proved my point with your response, so thank you. You see, you’ve been propogandized by the political elite–and you don’t even know it! You and I can’t even have a legitimate discussion about the topic because everything you say is the product of propaganda and not historic fact!
If you really want to discuss this feel free to start another thread…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Well, Doc, there’s a teacher in my high school who uses it as his primary text. I’ve battled him for years because its a tissue of Marxist BS — for ex, I never knew that Harry Truman started the Korean War, or that Washington was the richest man in America. I never knew that the British and Americans are like the Bloods and the Crips, the Crips coming out with some tissue of trickery (calling it the Constitution) in order to take over the turf.
This teacher got this BS at a major Big 10 University, so he had to be fed it by someone there. Who’d be most likely to do that?
Since you responded to the thread, I’ll assume you’ve read the book. Being highly intelligient with 3 doctorates, and me trusting in your integrity, do you honestly think this ‘book’ should not be laughed off of any serious lectern?
HH[/quote]
This is a valuable historical look at America. Zinn is not a marxist for you information. He’s a historican, american citizen who was in WW2 as a bombadirre. Also students in most high school and colleges don’t just read one thing or one book they read a number of books and articles and then they discuss them. I don’t think you know what your talking about, be honest and put aside you igorance/ hate and see clearly.
“Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize in economics), among others, has also infuenced me a great deal. This is really all besides the point because this isn’t a discussion about economics”
True, and I apologize for going off-topic. My point about propoganda still stands. Keeping on the subject of the depression, Milton Friedman said, “Smoot-Hawley played no significant role in either causing the depression or prolonging it.”
Yet, generation after generation are still being indoctrinated in that myth. Propoganda to induce in Americans a sense of guilt, so that we never again raise tariffs to protect our national interests.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
“Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize in economics), among others, has also infuenced me a great deal. This is really all besides the point because this isn’t a discussion about economics”
True, and I apologize for going off-topic. My point about propoganda still stands. Keeping on the subject of the depression, Milton Friedman said, “Smoot-Hawley played no significant role in either causing the depression or prolonging it.”[/quote]
True; however, he also said, “Unfortunately, it is still the case that if you ask people what caused the Great Depression, nine out of ten will probably tell you it was a failure of business. But it’s absolutely clear that the Depression was a failure of government and not a failure of business.”
The problem, as far as I can tell anyways, is that you are assuming my position has, at its foundation, the notion that Smoot-Hawley created the Depression. The truth is, it is much more complicated than that–much like the position of most libertarians–contrary to your “black and white” comment.
You see, Friedman goes on to say,
“I think the Smoot-Hawley tariff was a bad law. I think it did harm. But the Smoot-Hawley tariff by itself would not have made one quarter of the labor force unemployed. However, reducing the quantity of money by one third did make a quarter of the labor force unemployed.”
I think you are overstating things a bit. Ask 9 out of 10 what caused the Great Depression and they will tell you a failure of business; ask 9 out of 10 what Smoot-Hawley is, and they’ll have no f’in clue. It seems those doing the propogandizing are doing a piss poor job of it…
The truth, as I see it, is that generations of Amercians have been indoctrinated into the myth that if not for the benevolent guidence of the federal governmnet, America would have decayed into a third world country. This all done in an effort to create dependence and perminent positions of power.
That we can both make essentially the same claim, while reaching different conclusions, about the exact same event, proves my point. There is no corporate or political conspiracy to hide the truth from the American people. There are simply disputed facts and the facts most agreed upon by historians make it into the mainstream. There is nothing sinister about it…
I wonder why many on the Left (and many on the Right, for that matter) feel the need to make conspiratorial claims when their views aren’t given the attention they feel they deserve?
[quote]silee wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Well, Doc, there’s a teacher in my high school who uses it as his primary text. I’ve battled him for years because its a tissue of Marxist BS — for ex, I never knew that Harry Truman started the Korean War, or that Washington was the richest man in America. I never knew that the British and Americans are like the Bloods and the Crips, the Crips coming out with some tissue of trickery (calling it the Constitution) in order to take over the turf.
This teacher got this BS at a major Big 10 University, so he had to be fed it by someone there. Who’d be most likely to do that?
Since you responded to the thread, I’ll assume you’ve read the book. Being highly intelligient with 3 doctorates, and me trusting in your integrity, do you honestly think this ‘book’ should not be laughed off of any serious lectern?
HH
This is a valuable historical look at America. Zinn is not a marxist for you information. He’s a historican, american citizen who was in WW2 as a bombadirre. Also students in most high school and colleges don’t just read one thing or one book they read a number of books and articles and then they discuss them. I don’t think you know what your talking about, be honest and put aside you igorance/ hate and see clearly.
[/quote]
Ummm…I’m a high school teacher with 25 years of experience. I know how students study and I know all about Mr. Zinn. Do your homework and at least read the thread before making ignorant comments.
There is also this thing on computers called ‘Spellchecker’. You might want to use it. Too bad there’s no logic checker though — if I’m ignorant and full of hate, what would cause me to put those things aside and ‘see clearly’?
"he never once asked or even suggested that we, his students, read Zinn’s work as a source of objective history. The reason: Zinn doesn’t even pretend to present an objective view of history. He has an axe to grind.
Everyone interested in history should read his work; however, take it for what it is. He effectively takes history and transforms it into a political treatise"
and then follows it up with this…
“There is no corporate or political conspiracy to hide the truth from the American people. There are simply disputed facts and the facts most agreed upon by historians make it into the mainstream.”
Um, yeah.
I think certain free trade libertarian claims that “the Civil War was caused by high tariffs” or “the Depression was caused by high tariffs” and “Everything evil under the sun was caused by high tariffs” were written by people with axes to grind the same way we both agree that Zinn has an axe to grind. Is that better? We can debate the facts (if you agree with them), or just agree to disagree.
"he never once asked or even suggested that we, his students, read Zinn’s work as a source of objective history. The reason: Zinn doesn’t even pretend to present an objective view of history. He has an axe to grind.
Everyone interested in history should read his work; however, take it for what it is. He effectively takes history and transforms it into a political treatise"
and then follows it up with this…
“There is no corporate or political conspiracy to hide the truth from the American people. There are simply disputed facts and the facts most agreed upon by historians make it into the mainstream.”
Um, yeah.[/quote]
Um, yeah…what? Is there a contradiction in what I wrote? or am I missing something else? I’m sorry but I’m not as enlightened as you–what with all the propoganda floating around in my head–so please, spell it out for me.
I see. So because “certain free trade libertarians”–could you be any more nebulous?–believe the tariff is the root of all evil, I, as a libertarian, must believe the same? Tariffs, IMO, are bad policy but are they the sole cause of the Depression? I don’t think so. But again, what does any of that have to do with this thread?
You’ve completely lost me. Yes, we can debate the facts. Never said we couldn’t; no one in this thread said we couldn’t. Why would one debate facts one agrees with? Do you want to debate the facts in Zinn’s book?
What I have a problem with is using Zinn’s book as an authoritative work of history in a classroom setting and then being told that I only hold that position because I’ve been duped by some cabal of corporate elitists, as if Zinn holds the only reasonable position.
I used the example of the Great Depression in order to show the stupidity of conspiracy charges in situations where one’s viewpoint isn’t held in the mainstream. In other words: Stick to debating the facts and shut the f*@k up about conspiracies, corporate or otherwise.
“I used the example of the Great Depression in order to show the stupidity of conspiracy charges in situations where one’s viewpoint isn’t held in the mainstream. In other words: Stick to debating the facts and shut the f*@k up about conspiracies, corporate or otherwise.”
Hey dick face, where was I talking about corporate conspiracies? I said history is sometimes told as propoganda. Is it that fucking hard to comprehend? Jesus Christ. Let me spell it out for you with an example. As a libertarian, I could take Thomas Jefferson’s life and cherry pick history and portray him as a free trader and strict libertarian only concerned with people’s liberties. I could also, if I wanted to, cherry pick history and portray him as an tyrant whos presidency was filled with anti-libertarian policies and who stepped on people’s liberties and saw the error of free trade and turned into an economic nationalist toward the end of his life. Comprende? I doubt it, but I don’t give a shit.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Anyone here read his work? This is the kind of crapola being fed to college and high school kids: You are all evil or dupes, because you’re American.
Here’s a good review of Zinn’s evil masterpiece.
HH[/quote]
Show us page or article where Howard Zinn says that because we are american’s we are either evil or dupes?
cite us the passages. not what you say but what he says.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
silee wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Well, Doc, there’s a teacher in my high school who uses it as his primary text. I’ve battled him for years because its a tissue of Marxist BS — for ex, I never knew that Harry Truman started the Korean War, or that Washington was the richest man in America. I never knew that the British and Americans are like the Bloods and the Crips, the Crips coming out with some tissue of trickery (calling it the Constitution) in order to take over the turf.
This teacher got this BS at a major Big 10 University, so he had to be fed it by someone there. Who’d be most likely to do that?
Since you responded to the thread, I’ll assume you’ve read the book. Being highly intelligient with 3 doctorates, and me trusting in your integrity, do you honestly think this ‘book’ should not be laughed off of any serious lectern?
HH
[/quote]
This is a valuable historical look at America. Zinn is not a marxist for you information. He’s a historican, american citizen who was in WW2 as a bombadirre. Also students in most high school and colleges don’t just read one thing or one book they read a number of books and articles and then they discuss them. I don’t think you know what your talking about, be honest and put aside you igorance/ hate and see clearly.
Ummm…I’m a high school teacher with 25 years of experience. I know how students study and I know all about Mr. Zinn. Do your homework and at least read the thread before making ignorant comments.
There is also this thing on computers called ‘Spellchecker’. You might want to use it. Too bad there’s no logic checker though — if I’m ignorant and full of hate, what would cause me to put those things aside and ‘see clearly’?
We need an IQ test for this site.
HH
You haven’t said one thing of substance, all you’ve said by way of insult is : you don’t like howard zinn’s work, or for that matter Howard Zinn.
For your information one can critique social policy without being a marxist. Secondly, there are many different types of Marxism, How are you using that term? Also is it your position that, if one criticises a political state of affairs, rather that just parroting back that postion, that one is unamerican? See if you can answer without committing the fallacy of ad hominem, that’s if your interested in understanding rather than spreading nonsense.
Why is it that the genocide in East Timor in the mid-70’s wasn’t front page news almost everyday? Because U.S. corporations were selling arms to Indonesia to commit the slaughter. And the payoff was absolutely gargantuan for weapons makers. The U.S. could have easily stopped selling the weapons that were used to commit the atrocity. But they didn’t! WHY? MONEY, POWER and INFLUENCE. The same reason most wars are fought!
First, the corporations selling arms were not the corporations selling news, they never had common interests. Yes they are both corporations but that forces them to be buddies much in the same way a puma and an antilope are friends because they are mammals.
The reason why US news do not cover such things is because noone in the US gives a shit.
Second, the Tutsis an the Hutus killed each other with machetes and they were surprisingly succesful. See, they do not need our weapons, they can do it with knives, sticks and stones if necessary. [/quote]
Do some research and find out how close GE, Westinghouse etc. are to General Dynamics, LockheedMartin etc.
So if noone in the U.S. cared about mass murder in East Timor why did they care about mass murder of Cambodians that happened during the same time period? Because it was ALL over the press. Are the murdered Cambodians worthy of mention but the Timorese are not? And what does that say of morals in the general sense? Not to mention that some beleive that one of the reasons we are in this current war is to liberate a people who were under a brutal dictatorship? Why select who you apply morals to? Are we not all human beings?
Your last statement has nothing to do with what I’m referring to so I’m unsure why you typed it in this thread.
‘World suffering’? What are you talking about? The USA is the LIBERATOR of the world.
Also, is it in the interest of a capitalist to ‘do you harm’? Possibly, if they are some fly-by-night outfit. That’s why reputation is so important. That’s why you seek out reputable companies. Don’t blame capitalism because some scammers exist; they’re in ANY society.
HH
YOU have been propaganzied! Look outside the corporate medai for a real opposing point of view.
U.S. caused suffering:
Vietnam, Korea, Niceruagua, East Timor and now Iraq. Plus a smorgsboard of other countries I’ll list if you want know.
Hmmm…stopping dictatorships means you are the one causing suffering. Interesting.
Almost fascinating.
HH[/quote]
Hmmm… yes is quite fascinating that you only hear a filtered version of the news and that is why you believe what you do. It’s all the information you were allowed to hear. All the news “that’s fit to print”.
Is it moral or ethical to sell a junkie drugs just because you can make money from it?
People who belive in absolutes may tell you that what you buy can/will do you harm but they should give you the right to choose. Did Christ force anyone to accept him? Yes there are consequences for denying him but YOU are free to choose.
If you are not a relativist then what do you call denying absolutes?
I do not call it anything, I just never met people that really believe in moral absolutes, just people that have convinced themselves they do.
Why would I want to join a delusional crowd?
Is it moral or ethical to sell a junkie drugs, no, is it moral or ethical to have a government agency (that will soon be overrun by special interests) tell us what is moral and ethical, no…
Since these are the alternatives I?d rather err on the side of freedom, even if that means the freedom of a junkie to slowly kill himself. After all it is his live, not mine, and I have no business ordering him around…
You seem to have a basic problem with the fact that live sucks sometimes and you lay that at the feet of the current system, however neither capitalism nor corporations are responsible for all that suffering, on the contrary, life without them would be infinitely worse…
[/quote]
If it isn’t moral or ethical to sell a junkie drugs, what do you base this on, if there are no absolutes to tell what the difference is?
A governments view of morals may be right or wrong. You determine which is right and follow those because they are such. Not because a government tell you.
No a corporation is not responsible for all suffering but they do more than there fair share. They are almost like an inanimate object but get the rights of a person. They are a person with little or no consciuos to there actions or externalities.
There main concern is for profit not people. They are required by law as such. They could be viewed in thier actions and consequences as psychopaths. Pollution, purposeful manipulation, greed etc. w/o a real concern for the people they affect.
It’s far more complicated than that. This is what you are fed by the elites in order to justify intervention - Iraq being the msot recent.
Take a look at U.S. intervention into countries and they overwhelmingly do worse.
What happened to the story that if Vietnam fell to the communists there would be a domino effect and eventually the Red Menace would take over the world? It never happened. In fact Southeast Asia has a pretty vibrant economy considering the amount of devastation that came from the U.S.
Also the people of Vietnam voted for the communists. But the U.S. couldn’t have it. They couldn’t have foreign people voting for the wrong guy instead of a U.S. puppet. Just like the situation today when the population of Palestines voted for Hamas. The U.S. couldn’t let an indegious population vote for the wrong guy. Talk about spreading democracy!
Yeah, I saw all those people voting WITH THEIR FEET, begging for us to take them with us.
Look, even if a bunch of people vote for someone who vows to destroy you, wouldn’t you somehow counter that or try? What happens when we allow very hostile governments into power? Can we say ‘Iran’? We also allowed North Korea to stand. Do you support that regime as well?
Now, you say that the SE peninsula is better because they now have a vibrant economy. What did they adopt to cause them to become ‘vibrant’? Capitalism!
I also think that quite a few Laotians and Cambodians might take exception to your interpretation of the ‘Domino’ effect. Can we say ‘Khmer Rouge’?
HH
[/quote]
The counrty of Vietnam never vowed to destroy us. What I support is peoples rights to vote who they want into office. The U.S. doesn’t unless that government is friendly to the U.S. business class. If they aren’t then alot of the times they will try and engineer a coup. Usually the CIA is involved. Happens quite frequently.
… They couldn’t have foreign people voting for the wrong guy instead of a U.S. puppet. Just like the situation today when the population of Palestines voted for Hamas. The U.S. couldn’t let an indegious population vote for the wrong guy. Talk about spreading democracy!
…
You just gave an example that completely contradicted your case.
The US pushed democracy and let Hamas be elected even though we knew it was a possibility.
You really are full of shit.[/quot
Here is a case where they can let an ally do it for them.
If it isn’t moral or ethical to sell a junkie drugs, what do you base this on, if there are no absolutes to tell what the difference is?
A governments view of morals may be right or wrong. You determine which is right and follow those because they are such. Not because a government tell you.
[/quote]
I personaly, would not want to be part in another persons self-destruction. Period.
I do not need to justify or explain anything, I just would not do it. On the other hand I do have no real problem with drug dealers as long as they sell to grown-ups.
The “not because a government tell you” ignores the ever expanding nature of government.
Once you establish that a governmet establishes moral rules by force in rather trivial matters, there will be people trying to get government postions who allways knew how I should lead my life and are more than willing to use force to make me live by their rules.
It is better to not even start to legislate morality, or else they are making rules concerning drug use and blow jobs sooner or later.
There are laws against criminal behaviour. If a companies executives break laws, it is hardly the company that to blame.
Even though this whole company system my have it`s flaws, it clothes us, it feeds us, it shelters us and it does so cheaper, better and more efficient than ever before in the history of mankind.
This last part is really the killer argument when it comes to companies, cities like New York could not last a week without them.
As long as noone comes up with something better, we got to feed the masses.
