Ron Paul... | Page 6 | INFJ Forum

Ron Paul...

You're blurring the lines in denial. They have access to these resources if they can compete in the market. If the conditions were poor they wouldn't take the jobs.

What you preclude is that by protecting your own state, by stopping them having the work, is that they can 'better afford' the goods.

No, because they will have a much larger trade deficit which they can't repay by earning the money back.

Now if you were really progressive, you would be campaigning to wipe out the use of passports or nationalities thus allowing them to move to the US and share your standard of living and opportunities.

It would certainly be better than confusing your priorities and demeaning these individuals who are making individual choices which they have decided are in their interest.

Daddy knows best is not a libertarian philosophy.
Yes, because young children working in these factories are making informed decisions for themselves and their families, and these decisions are based on market analysis. If it's between wage-slavery and starving, of course they're going to take the job. The other option is death. They cannot compete in their "market" because it doesn't exist, and even if it did their economic situation would exclude them.

If by calling out the corporations and multinational entities that use child labor I'm demeaning the children, then I think it's someone else who has their priorities out of whack.

Also, you do not know my political standings on issues other than what I have discussed, so please try to avoid making them up to slander my argument. A stateless society with free associate would be ideal, but that is hardly a realistic goal which is what another poster asked for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
A stateless society with free associate would be ideal, but that is hardly a realistic goal which is what another poster asked for.

Of course it is...after the revolution! :)

Capitalism has to keep on winning to survive but socialism only has to win once!

That said the scandinavian countries are doing pretty well with their higher taxes and high quality of life. That definately seems to suggest that a more even distribution of wealth would lead to a more stable society and a happier one (despite living in quite a harsh climate)
 
the-bickering-spreads.jpg
 
Its not a case of these countries deciding for themselves they have been taken over by the west. The west topples the democratically elected leaders in these countries, often assassinating them to remove them and uses force to put their own puppet governments in or they bribe corrupt officials in these countries to take out loans through the IMF or world Bank which indebts the country to these organisations which are run through the US

The countries are then forced to hand over their resources as interest on the unpayable loans. This is a new form of imperialism called 'neo-imperialism'. The old form was physically invading countries and forceablly grabbing their resources although the US is involved in that as well as it is occupying oil producing countries at the moment.

Here's a good John Pilger film about how the corporate interests use the IMF and world bank to control other countries, called 'War By Other Means':

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5399796928596929639

An ex CIA agent wrote a book called the Confessions of an Economic Hitman about how he used to threaten and intimidate third world leaders on behalf of the US corporations and when they refused to bow to him he would send in the 'jackals' or CIA hitmen to assassinate the leader:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

They don't tell people this stuff in the mainstream news because the mainstream media companies are owned by the coporate interests. They form part of a 'power elite' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite

We can do something about all this. Firstly we can make lifestyle choices about how we spend our money, for example Asarya already mentioned FAIRTRADE products earlier in the thread.

The second thing we can do is campaign to change how the system operates in order to change its priority from profit and on to whats good for people. The Occupy Wallstreet Movement is a great place to start.

The third thing we can do is educate ourselves about what is going on and explain to others as this will create the widespread awareness which is needed to bring about positive change

So to sum this up, in order to make changes in the third world the first world has to change first.
 
So to sum this up, in order to make changes in the third world the first world has to change first.

It has to change the way it is dealing with the third world for example cutting third world debt.

But this will not happen because the people who control our countries are the same people who own the corporations that are exploiting the third world.

For example in Britain we had a guy called Cecil Rhodes who was an powerful businessman and politician in Africa....in fact Rhodesia (modern day Zimbabwe) was named after him and he was the founders of the DeBeers diamond company (seen the DiCaprio film 'Blood Diamond'? Well this guy was the original diamond trader).

He moved to the diamond fields and set up a mining company financed (as so many industrialists in the US and UK were and still are) by the Rothschilds banking family.

He was behind the Jameson raid that instigated the Boer war which saw the first use of concentration camps as the British locked up the wives and children of the boers they were fighting in order to crush their spirit. Basically he wanted to get his hands on the gold that was in their district.

I'm talking about this guy not just because it illustrates how much the western imperialist powers have meddled in Africa but also because of who these people are. Rhodes believed white people were superior to other peoples and was deeply imperialist, believeing in the right of the British to rule over other peoples. He believed that the anglo-saxon people had a unique destiny to rule the world and he wanted the British empire to spread across the world.

He believed that the US, UK and Germany would together rule the world one day and he died one of the richest men in the world, leaving much of his fortune for the creation of a secret society writing the following in his will:

'To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity'

A group of interconnected societies called the 'round table groups' were set up to achieve this aim. US academic Professor Quigley wrote about a group he called the 'Milner Group' in his book 'Tragedy and Hope' which he explained had played a large part in world affairs over the last century.

Today the same families that are behind these groups are still controlling many coporations and banks and are the power elites behind such 'think tanks' as the Council on Foreign Relations in the US (here's a list of some of the members of the CFR including many corporations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations )and its sister organisation Chatham House in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House )


These groups represent the interests of all the big coporations in the US and UK which in turn are simply a front for the powerful people behind them. These people are the real powerbrokers not the politicians. The politicians come and go but these guys are always there and they fund the politicians, tell the politicians what to do and if the politicians don't do what they are told then they are destroyed.

It seems like there are many corporations and news outlets but really the ownership of these can all be traced back to a few people who meet in secret at events such as Bohemia Grove or the Bilderberg Club where no journalists are allowed to go, so the public are frozen out of the big decisions.

Politics is largely just theatre to make the public think that they have a say in matters...they don't....they are simply wage slaves whose birth certificate numbers are traded on the stock exchange as collateral. Politicians are simply middle management.

These people not only control us they control the third world as well through various organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank.

Did you see in the news how the democratically elected leaders of Greece and Italy were brushed aside and outside, unelected 'technocrats' put in their place? These technocrats are basically the agents of these power elites put there to help manage the transition of the US and Europe into a neo-fuedal state where the people are serfs who work as indentured labourers to the power elites.

That's why the middle classes are being destroyed and why the governments are tightening up controls. Its why the bankers were bailed out and are still getting massive bonuses....because it is all about shifting the wealth away from the people to the power elites. This has been going on as part of a policy agreed at the very top called the Washington Consensus (neoliberalism) which is a process whereby the 1% get all the profits whilst the 99% are left in debt (enslaved by debt like the third world)

In short yes we need to change the way things are run in the west to save not only the thrid world but ourselves as well.

That is why there is revolution around the world and protest movments because people are beginning to realise what is happening and all those who believe in democracy and their right to have a say in the running of their communities are protesting the grab of wealth by the 1%.

The third world has been raped by these people for hundreds of years. They had a triangle of trade going where they sailed ships to africa to pick up slaves, siled them across to the US, dropped of the slaves, picked up sugar and sailed back to Europe. The middle east has been raped by these people for its oil and now the people are rising up in anger at the puppet governments placed in power by the west.

There is going to be much more conflict yet because the people of europe and the third world are getting tired of all the lies of the power elites and of being exploited
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Quiet
Let me take a swing at this.

A very key concept in international trade is called Comparative advantage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage So from a numbers perspective, everybody wins. There is a great deal of mutually beneficial value to be gained from international trade, and that goes for outsourced labor (aka sweatshops) as well.

Alright, you don't like the idea of your country getting super cheap labor abroad, with bad working conditions, because it feels like we're taking advantage of someone. By our standards, the wages and conditions of a sweatshop are completely unacceptable, and we couldn't imagine ever having to work there. But look at it this way: What do you imagine day to day life is like, for the people of that country before we went in there? It was probably pretty shitty to begin with. And it's still going to be shitty, if we pull out all our sweatshops. The only difference would be that we don't have to feel guilty for being involved in that.

If you're interested in helping people in poor countries, then by all means, that's a very noble thing to do, but I don't think sweatshops are an effective focal point. Even if you got all sweatshops pulled out, that's not going to improve anyone's life.
 
I've already explained a number of times that this is about the countries of the third world managing their own resources

This is not about 'comparative advantage' or any other bullshit term the western economists want to dream up to justify exploiting the third world. This is not about a rising tide lifting all boats that is a myth and is not what we are seeing around the world. We are not seeing 'trickle down' we are seeing trickle up that's why the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.

It isn't just about whether or not we use cheap foreign labour, it is about whether or not we have our claws in the resources of those countries and whether or not we have bribed or intimidated their officials into accepting loans that indebt their countries to us so that we can steal their resources.

The economics that is being taught in western educational establishments is the teachings of the western power elite. It is basically a justification of the way the west does business. It is not honest.

It does not take into account the human costs of the markets it does not take into account the environmental cost and it doesn't give a damn about the welfare of the people in the third world. It isn't even working for the majority of people in the first world....it is only working for the 1%

The power elite are NOT INTERESTED IN HELPING THE THIRD WORLD. If it was then it would wipe out the debt to the third world, allow them to manage their own resources and stop invading and occupying countries.

The reality is that there are individuals in the west who want to blind themselves to the externalities of the economic system because they want to be a part of the system. This is not honest, it is moral cowardice.

All these bullshit arguments the apologists for western neo-imperialism give are basically justifications for their exploitation of the third world. They're not helping the people of the third world they are only helping the corrupt leadership of those countries that agree to kow tow to the west (if they don't they are assassinated or overthrown in western backed coups)

The western economic system is broken because it is designed to funnel the wealth upwards to the people at the top....that's not you the economics student...you will just be a minion of the power elite helping them to shift the money. There's no point dreaming of being a wealthy middle class person, the power elites are currently destroying the middle class.

There is only the people and those that are part of the elite club. If you think you can be part of that club you're kidding yourself, you'll still be a slave, you'll just be their creature

[video=youtube;hYIC0eZYEtI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI[/video]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: toska

Wrong, the introduction of good working conditions coupled with freedom from debt to western countries would allow these third world countries to use their own resources and labour to manufacture goods for themselves and for export whilst allowing their own people's quality of life to improve
 
Wrong, the introduction of good working conditions coupled with freedom from debt to western countries would allow these third world countries to use their own resources and labour to manufacture goods for themselves and for export whilst allowing their own people's quality of life to improve

Wrong, because they require the exchange of services to build up the technical competencies required to capably develop those resources.

Or worse, to even develop them at all.

The rest is simply trade.
 
Wrong, because they require the exchange of services to build up the technical competencies required to capably develop those resources.

Or worse, to even develop them at all.

The rest is simply trade.

We're not talking rocket science here Jim, we're talking about coal mining (and other forms of mining), logging, agriculture, fishing, oil, and the labour of the people. There are countries out there like Venezuala that would be more than happy to provide the expertise and hardware to extract oil for any country looking to break free from the grip of neoliberalism.

All of these things are being stolen by the west whilst the people are taxed to the hilt to pay for the interest on loans to the west

Instead of continuing with your justifications for slavery why don't you watch the John Pilger films i posted earlier and see real world examples of what is actually going on

I'm not talking about what the economics books written by ex-wall street bankers say, i'm not talking about what publications like the 'Economist' that are owned by the big corporations are saying i'm talking about what is actually going on on the ground and journalists like Pilger have been there and seen it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Quiet
We're not talking rocket science here Jim, we're talking about coal mining (and other forms of mining), logging, agriculture, fishing, oil, and the labour of the people.

Since I work in that industry helping out the government owned national oil companies in Latin America, Russia, the middle east, Africa and South East Asia I think you should really give way to my expertise rather than continuing to pull out tenuous correlations without having a blind idea about the reality of what you are discussing.

A lack of knowledge of reality on your part does not constitute a lack of knowledge in the viewpoint of others that you require to match your perceived reality.
 
Last edited:
I've already explained a number of times that this is about the countries of the third world managing their own resources
What resources?

This is not about 'comparative advantage' or any other bullshit term the western economists want to dream up to justify exploiting the third world.
Do you have an actual argument, refuting the principle of 'comparative advantage'?

it is about whether or not we have our claws in the resources of those countries and whether or not we have bribed or intimidated their officials into accepting loans that indebt their countries to us so that we can steal their resources.
Who's bribing who for what?

The economics that is being taught in western educational establishments is the teachings of the western power elite. It is basically a justification of the way the west does business. It is not honest.
Again, do you have an actual argument regarding any particular economic principle?

It does not take into account the human costs of the markets it does not take into account the environmental cost
Economics theory does, actually.

The power elite are NOT INTERESTED IN HELPING THE THIRD WORLD.
They're not obligated to. And actually, I would say that people in general aren't willing to sacrifice much to help the third world.

All these bullshit arguments
You keep throwing around accusations without having an actual argument, then complain about "bullshit arguments" without actually being able to refute any.
 
Wrong, the introduction of good working conditions coupled with freedom from debt to western countries would allow these third world countries to use their own resources and labour to manufacture goods for themselves and for export whilst allowing their own people's quality of life to improve
If someone borrows a few thousand dollars from you, and doesn't pay it back, it's nice for you to absolve their debt, but you're not obligated to. If someone's struggling financially, it's really nice for you to help them out, but it's not your responsibility.
 
If someone borrows a few thousand dollars from you, and doesn't pay it back, it's nice for you to absolve their debt, but you're not obligated to. If someone's struggling financially, it's really nice for you to help them out, but it's not your responsibility.

Obviously. This is not how the IMF works (or any synonymous organizations).
 
Since I work in that industry helping out the government owned national oil companies in Latin America, Russia, the middle east, Africa and South East Asia I think you should really give way to my expertise rather than continuing to pull out tenuous correlations without having a blind idea about the reality of what you are discussing.

A lack of knowledge of reality on your part does not constitute a lack of knowledge in the viewpoint of others that you require to match your perceived reality.

Just more waffle from you there Jim

But now i know why you are so reluctant to admit the negative influence of the west on the third world.....you are an active player in it

Your conscience is your business but don't try and convince me that we are not exploiting the third world it won't wash

I've already said you should watch the Pilger films but in reality i think you are too scared because it would rock your world

You need to believe that you're not supporting slavery because your perception of reality depends on that, but some of us are able to be more honest with ourselves
 
Last edited:
What resources?

Do you have an actual argument, refuting the principle of 'comparative advantage'?

Who's bribing who for what?

Again, do you have an actual argument regarding any particular economic principle?

Economics theory does, actually.

They're not obligated to. And actually, I would say that people in general aren't willing to sacrifice much to help the third world.

You keep throwing around accusations without having an actual argument, then complain about "bullshit arguments" without actually being able to refute any.

What i am saying to you is that you need to look beyond the economic theory that you are digesting from textbooks

If for example you are checking the veracity of a historical text you would find out who wrote the text to try and establish what their agenda is. It is the same with economic theory. You need to ask yourself who has written the textbooks you read and why they have written them. they have written them to defend a certain approach which they support (neoliberalism). The chances are they support that approach not because it is the best for the people of the third world but because they have personally gained from it (grown rich through it)

Look at the state of the economy, look at the high unemployment figures, look at the national debt, look at the conflicts abroad, look at the sweatshops and working copnditions in the third world, look at all these things and it should be obvious that the current economic paradigm is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the rest.

I have already answered many of your questions in previous posts but perhaps you haven't read these?

The role the west plays in the third world is one of imperialism. This means they use certain methods to get their hands on resources that do not belong to them.

The west has a history of invading, occupying or colonising countries, stealing their resources and exploiting the labour of the people in them. They are still doing this in many ways.

The west overthrows the democratically elected leaders of other countries, it puts puppet governments in place, thereby blocking democracy in those countries and it bribes corrupt officials in those countries to accept loans the countries don't need to get the countries in debt to organisations like the IMF. The people are then stuck paying interest on loans to the IMF and forced to work in sweatshops in slave labour conditions to pay the exorbitant taxes to the corrupt officials so that they can pay the interest payments to the IMF

Why not watch the Pilger film 'war by other means' that i posted earlier in the thread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
If someone borrows a few thousand dollars from you, and doesn't pay it back, it's nice for you to absolve their debt, but you're not obligated to. If someone's struggling financially, it's really nice for you to help them out, but it's not your responsibility.

If i hold a gun to someones head and say 'you will take this loan from me or i'll blow your brains out', they will likely take out the loan and then they are stuck forever more paying interest payments on that loan to me so they become my economic slave.

The interest payments cripple their economy so that they cannot exploit their own resources and labour and are instead forever bleeding themselves dry to pay interest on a loan they can never hope to pay off.

When they can't tax themsleves anymore i say to them ok then pay me in things. Give me your car and then your house (or in the case of third world countries it would be logging, oil, various crops or whatever their natural resources are) etc.

That's pretty much what the west is doing in the third world

We have used force and intimidation for hundreds of years, its called 'gunboat diplomacy' (see also the book or the documentary called 'confessions of an economic hitman')

I think this is morally reprehensible and i don't think capitalism is working. By not working i mean it is not providing well for everyone around the world because it is allocating resources in a totally uneven way which is why there is conflict, protests, economic hardship etc

There are other ways to do things

Some individuals don't care if capitalism is not working for most of humanity as long as they are ok and some of them will even deny this fact to themselves to make themselves feel better.

Arguments have been made to justify the behaviour of the corporations and these delusional or dishonest individuals will cling to these arguments because it is the screen they hide their moral cowardice behind
 
Last edited:
What i am saying to you is that you need to look beyond the economic theory that you are digesting from textbooks

If for example you are checking the veracity of a historical text you would find out who wrote the text to try and establish what their agenda is. It is the same with economic theory. You need to ask yourself who has written the textbooks you read and why they have written them. they have written them to defend a certain approach which they support (neoliberalism). The chances are they support that approach not because it is the best for the people of the third world but because they have personally gained from it (grown rich through it)
Excellent point.

Look at the state of the economy, look at the high unemployment figures, look at the national debt, look at the conflicts abroad, look at the sweatshops and working copnditions in the third world, look at all these things and it should be obvious that the current economic paradigm is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the rest.
Hmmm... another very good point point here.

The role the west plays in the third world is one of imperialism. This means they use certain methods to get their hands on resources that do niot belong to them.

The west has a history of invading, occupying or colonising countries, stealing their resources and exploiting the labour of the people in them. They are still doing this in many ways.

The west overthrows the democratically elected leaders of other countries, it puts puppet governments in place, thereby blocking democracy in those countries and it bribes corrupt officials in those countries to accept loans the countries don't need to get the countries in debt to organisations like the IMF. The people are then stuck paying interest on loans to the IMF anhd forced to work in sweatshops in slave labour conditions to pay the exorbiatnt taxes to the corrupt officials so that they can pay the interest payments to the IMF
Sounds like quite the racket going on!

Why not watch the PIlger film 'war by other means' that i posted earlier in the thread?
I will watch the entire thing. I'm sorry for not reading all of your posts.