Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on December 10, 2003, 10:07:48 AM
-
PARIS (Reuters) - France and Germany responded defiantly Wednesday to a U.S. decision to bar their firms from competing for prime contracts to rebuild Iraq (news - web sites), a move which could open a new rift in troubled transatlantic relations.
(like we give a crap)
The United States unveiled plans Tuesday to limit competition for 26 reconstruction contracts in Iraq worth up to $18.6 billion, excluding countries such as Germany, France and Russia which opposed the war.
France said it would study whether the U.S. move was legal and Germany said it could not accept the U.S. decision.
As if there is anything they could do about it, what a bunch of greedy turds. I know, go complain to the UN, and we can veto your resolutions.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
As if there is anything they could do about it, what a bunch of greedy turds. I know, go complain to the UN, and we can veto your resolutions.
dago
Thats great.. then they can veto ours..
Another excellent example on our president being a uniter and not a divider...
k
AoM
-
why would they want to...it wasnt there war why should they be upset if they dont have to clean up after it...its like importing greeks to clean up after a parade held in new york...
-
If Iraqi money is going to be spent on the reconstruction, shouldn't an interim Iraqi government decide who gets the contracts?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
If Iraqi money is going to be spent on the reconstruction, shouldn't an interim Iraqi government decide who gets the contracts?
Ravs
The Bin Laden construction company!
-
How much are Germany and France putting into the kitty?
It might seem like the US government is taking thier money for Iraq and giving it to US firms exclusively. If this is the case, then I understand why they might be upset. If they aren't contributing money, then f*** 'em.
-
US goes to war, many American's die for another stupid Rich man's cause, US congress allocates big bucks to reconstruct Iraq..
Countries who opposed US breaking of international law, such as France, Germany, Russia, and China see an opportunity to make some cash... so they come in, win the contracts, their own people get the work, and get the take the money to their banks.
Makes sense to me. That's how US government has always worked in the past.
Why not again.
All companies in France, Germany, etc have to do is set up a paper US Subsiduary... and get the contract... then sub-contract out to the parent company back in Europe.
Doh!
-
"Prime contracts for reconstruction funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to the Iraqi people and those countries who are working with the United States on the difficult task of helping to build a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday. "
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/10/iraqcontracts_031210
US taxpayer dollars? Makes sense to me.
-
What about the whole donor's conference business about a month ago. They are supposed to chip in "for iraq" because Haliburton isn't quite making enough as it stands ?
WARNING CUT AND PASTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/international/middleeast/10GAS.html
High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: December 10, 2003
he United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.
Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.
The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.
But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.
A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.
The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to 15 cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to avoid another hardship for Iraqis.
The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price, the records show.
Ms. Hall said Halliburton's subcontractor had had more than 20 trucks damaged or stolen, nine drivers injured and one driver killed when making fuel runs into Iraq.
She said the contract was also expensive because it was hard to find a company with the trucks necessary to move the fuel, and because Halliburton is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel. "It is not as simple as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," she said.
A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also defended the price of imported fuel.
"Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about the dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Mr. Faletti said. "That's the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.
Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations sanctions.
Nearly $500 million has already been spent to bring gas, benzene and other fuels into Iraq, according to the corps. And as part of the $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush signed last month, $18.6 billion will be spent on reconstruction projects, including $690 million for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004.
From May to late October, Halliburton imported about 61 million gallons of fuel from Kuwait and about 179 million from Turkey, at a total cost of more than $383 million.
A company's profits on the transport and sale of gasoline are usually razor-thin, with companies losing contracts if they overbid by half a penny a gallon. Independent experts who reviewed Halliburton's percentage of its gas importation contract said the company's 26-cent charge per gallon of gas from Kuwait appeared to be extremely high.
"I have never seen anything like this in my life," said Phil Verleger, a California oil economist and the president of the consulting firm PK Verleger LLC. "That's a monopoly premium — that's the only term to describe it. Every logistical firm or oil subsidiary in the United States and Europe would salivate to have that sort of contract."
In March, Halliburton was awarded a no-competition contract to repair Iraq's oil industry, and it has already received more than $1.4 billion in work. That award has been the focus of Congressional scrutiny in part because Vice President Dick Cheney is Halliburton's former chief executive officer. As part of its contract, Halliburton began importing fuel in the spring when gasoline was in short supply in large Iraqi cities.
The government's accounting shows that Halliburton paid its Kuwait subcontractor $1.17 a gallon, when it was selling for 71 cents a gallon wholesale in the Middle East.
In addition, Halliburton is paying $1.21 a gallon to transport the fuel an estimated 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq, the documents show. It is paying 22 cents a gallon to transport gas into Iraq from Turkey.
The 26 cents a gallon it keeps includes a 2-cent fee and 24 cents for "mark-up costs," the documents show. The mark-up portion is intended to cover the overhead for administering the contract.
Ms. Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the corps to call it a mark-up. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the general and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," she said. "These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps of Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and approved by U.S. government auditors."
In recent weeks, the costs of importing fuel from Kuwait have risen. Figures provided recently to Congressional investigators by the corps show that Halliburton was charging as much as $3.06 per gallon for fuel from Kuwait in late November.
If the corps concludes that Halliburton has successfully administered the gas contract, it could be paid an additional 5 percent of the total value of the gas it imported.
Halliburton's Kuwait subcontractor was hired in May. Halliburton and the Army Corps of Engineers refused to identify the company, citing security reasons. Aides to Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who has been a critic of the fuel contract, said government officials had identified it as the Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company. Several independent petroleum experts in the Middle East and the United States said they had not heard of Altanmia.
Copies of the Army Corps documents were given to Mr. Waxman's office, which provided them to The Times.
Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO — and by Halliburton's subcontractor — are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts.
The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.
The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year.
In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable that Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said.
-
There have been lots of things that Bush has been uclear or dishonest about in this whole ordeal. But who would be paid to rebuild was not one of them. If this is a supprise to anyone they are kind of sad. As to thier protests...they will be filed away I am sure. When it comes out in the wash wether this whole war was a good or bad thing then they can wave thier protests or forget about them.
I am sure if they both contributed 5000 soldiers they would be alloud in.
Other then that, will US soldiers be protecting German contractors from attacks by Iraqis?
On second thought, Bush should let em in. Best way to get their buy in on the war is to get a few of them capped by the iraqis.
-
Good call. I like this administration more each day.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Good call. I like this administration more each day.
Why??
k
AoM
-
Thats great.. then they can veto ours..
Beep beep, Earth to Kappa : They already have!
-
it wasnt there war why should they be upset if they dont have to clean up after it
Its about money. France and Germany want it. That is why they tried blocking the US in the first place from going into Iraq, money.
Now that we are there, the blood price is paid and being paid, they just want to cash in on the money to be made.
dago
-
They are supposed to chip in "for iraq" because Haliburton isn't quite making enough as it stands ?
A little honest research about Haliburton and the contracts might open your eyes a little. Or, of course, you could just accept and believe what the liberal press is feeding you and regurgitate it like a mindless pawn.
dago
-
US goes to war, many American's die for another stupid Rich man's cause,
Nexus,
Spoken like the true fool pretty much everyone believes you to be.
dago
-
If Iraqi money is going to be spent on the reconstruction, shouldn't an interim Iraqi government decide who gets the contracts?
Most, if not all the money is US Taxpayer dollars. That will be easy for you to discover if you do the research.
dago
-
nobody likes carrion eaters kappa. those 'opposed' nations are vulturing above a people they cared nothing about before , didnt care about during the war ... because they profited from it... and all the sudden they 'care' because it hurts their pockets.
-
Dago: Most, if not all the money is US Taxpayer dollars. That will be easy for you to discover if you do the research.
Right - so if I must pay money to restore Iraq, I want it spent in the most efficient way. If a german or french company presents a more attractive bid, it is in my interests as a US taxpayer to have it accepted.
Otherwise I will doubt that the goal of all enterprise is restoration of Iraq rather than subcidising the cronies.
Next thing we know, the government will make us buy only goods and services from Bush-linked companies instead of foreign imports.
miko
-
Originally posted by OIO
nobody likes carrion eaters kappa. those 'opposed' nations are vulturing above a people they cared nothing about before , didnt care about during the war ... because they profited from it... and all the sudden they 'care' because it hurts their pockets.
Are you making these comments w/ the pretense that america 'cared' about these iraqi people?
Either way no matter, I only intended to point out our president's ability to make friends around the world. I was not inferring that america's position is right or wrong.... Just that after 3yrs in office you'd think a political leader such as Dubya would have gotten or at least bought a clue as to the proper ways to conduct foreign affairs and keep all parties as happy as possible.. Seems our countrie's grace and liberties have been extended with the middle finger...
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Right - so if I must pay money to restore Iraq, I want it spent in the most efficient way. If a german or french company presents a more attractive bid, it is in my interests as a US taxpayer to have it accepted.
Otherwise I will doubt that the goal of all enterprise is restoration of Iraq rather than subcidising the cronies.
Next thing we know, the government will make us buy only goods and services from Bush-linked companies instead of foreign imports.
miko
a HIT!
k
AoM
-
Thats right miko but i really dont have a problem if all the money / orders goes to allies i.e. back to the tax payers resp. to those countries that pay for the reconstruction.
Lets see what the WTO (not the UN :rolleyes: ) says about this.
The silly thing about it is the explanatory statement of Wolfowitz. He really is a moron. Why not say it as it is. Maybe diplomacy forbids to be honest.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Its about money. France and Germany want it. That is why they tried blocking the US in the first place from going into Iraq, money.
Now that we are there, the blood price is paid and being paid, they just want to cash in on the money to be made.
dago
i could have sworn that cashing in was one of the main principals of the free market ideal that america is using right now...
-
Right - so if I must pay money to restore Iraq, I want it spent in the most efficient way. If a german or french company presents a more attractive bid, it is in my interests as a US taxpayer to have it accepted.
How about we solict the opinions of those taxpaying parents who have lost sons and daughters in the Iraq war? I strongly suspect that they pay more taxes than one communist loudmouth who has nothing good to say about the country he is currently infesting.
I am pretty sure if you polled the parents of the servicemen and women who have died, and those who have children serving, they would be in favor of countries who have supported us in some means in our efforts. Matter of fact, I will go out on a limb here and suggest that if a national poll were held today, an overwhelming majority of the this nations citizens would support the policy of awarding contracts to only those nations who stood by us in this effort.
Must be aggravating to so many of you anti-Bush admin types that his approval rating is going up, not down. That better than 50% support our actions in Iraq.
Miko, since I do not remember even once you saying anything positive about the USA, about life here or our government, why don't you move out? France would probably welcome you, Canada isn't picky, and what the heck, you already speak Russian and they agree with your views. I promise we will get by just fine without you.
dago
-
No troops, no contracts.
-
i could have sworn that cashing in was one of the main principals of the free market ideal that america is using right now...
How about explaining this?
Bet you dont.
Kind of ignores history now doesnt it? I will lay odds that when it is all said and done, what we spend helping Iraq will exceed by multiples what we get back in return.
But then, that doesnt make for such dramatic sounding rhetoric as the nonsense so many spout.
dago
-
No troops, no contracts.
Well said. I agree.
dago
-
If a german or french company presents a more attractive bid, it is in my interests as a US taxpayer to have it accepted
====
A miss. France and Germany behaved and continue to behave as antagonists to american interests in Iraq, to allow them to bid, assuming they would bid lower, does nothing to improve your interests as an american, let alone as a taxpayer.
-
Originally posted by Dago
How about we solict the opinions of those taxpaying parents who have lost sons and daughters in the Iraq war? I strongly suspect that they pay more taxes than one communist loudmouth who has nothing good to say about the country he is currently infesting.
If we did, how many of those do you think would support ANYTHING our president did??
k
AoM
-
Better put on them jackboot Miko, few more republican administrations and you might fail "100 reasons why i love america and can't see anything at all wrong with it" test.
Then they will have to deport your immigrant ass. All in the name of freedom and democracy and all...
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Yeager
France and Germany behaved and continue to behave as antagonists to american interests in Iraq, to allow them to bid, assuming they would bid lower, does nothing to improve your interests as an american, let alone as a taxpayer.
Seems it would benefit you us as american AND as taxpayers to me... Seems it would benefit all sorts of world opinion, therby benefiting me as an american... Seems like it would improve my idea of our government, therby benefiting me as a american. Seems it could improve the situation having a 'world' represented in Iragi, therby benefitting not only Iraqis, but benefitting me as an american... seems it could save the government money, therby benefitting me as an american... I could prolly go on.........
k
AoM
-
If we did, how many of those do you think would support ANYTHING our president did??
Most all actually.
Yesterday I saw a television story about a Mexican-American gentelman who went to Iraq to "finish" the job his son had started. To help the children of Iraq have a brighter future. HIs son died after stepping on a mine. He showed no sense of blame towards the President, only a desire to complete what his soldier son saw as his mission.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
How about explaining this?
Bet you dont.
Kind of ignores history now doesnt it? I will lay odds that when it is all said and done, what we spend helping Iraq will exceed by multiples what we get back in return.
But then, that doesnt make for such dramatic sounding rhetoric as the nonsense so many spout.
dago
1. you were whining about france wanting to cash in...according to free market thats perfectly allright if not promoted...so them making a cash grab isnt really an issue...
2. i never said it wouldent...in fact it probably will...
3. what i DONT like about them trying to make a bid to help clean up iraq is that it wasnt there war and they have no business cleaning up after it...if they wanted to do it they could have helped you out with the invas...err liberation...
4. i like dramatic sounding nonsense...it makes me feel like a big man (because like most people on this board im just a nerd with no hope of being a "real" man...even if i do end up owning a fast cool looking car...)
-
Then they will have to deport your immigrant ass. All in the name of freedom and democracy and all...
Finally an idea I can get behind! Deport his ass.
I actually have no problem with a citizen critisizing something about our government, I do it to. But I doubt Miko is a citizen, and since NOTHING about our country seems to meet his approval, I was merely suggesting for his own happiness and peace of mind he move somewhere he would be happy.
Its a win/win. He's happy, and we are happy to have him gone.
dago
-
Well another prove thats gives US a go for the war, giving a blast contract to whoever supported the war. If i dont remember wrong it was not a finacial war was it ? hmm all about the terror ehh ? :D
I can understand that the US want some money back for removing Saddam, but where in heck is the WMD`s ?.
Well for guys like Saddam it is still about 189 of those guys running countries as he did, and his the only one got hit so far why ?
Have fun guys.
you got 188 countries to go rofl :)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Finally an idea I can get behind!
Stop Dago.. you could be misjudged into sounding facist...
Agree with him or not, I've not seen a misguided, unsubstantiated, unbacked statment from him yet.. His economic views are dead on! He doesnt overly name call. He doesnt hijack post. He doesnt make post with babble.. If he does post, its too the point, backed up, and usually some good common sense thrown in.
Im american. I have been american all my life. I have been brainwashed (luckily recovered) by public school's history book history. All the truths that I grew up with I found out later were not ALL true. Some were true if even just partialy. Perhaps I read miko with a different eye, but I see no ill-content against any of you, americans, from him. All I see are folks reading his 'walls of text' and then bashing him in turn... nice americans...... I'll stand down when someone shows me in context where miko has bashed america and not it's policies......
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by OIO
nobody likes carrion eaters kappa. those 'opposed' nations are vulturing above a people they cared nothing about before , didnt care about during the war ... because they profited from it... and all the sudden they 'care' because it hurts their pockets.
Maybe you should look into The Prevention of Genocide Act before you call the kettle black.:rolleyes:
-
Man i hope Germany will stay away from this whole Iraqi s*** !
We are in Afghanistan, thats more then enough.
Gh0stFT
-
I entirely agree with kappa about his comments on miko's postings.
I may not agree with what he says some of the time, but at least his postings are well reasoned.
Seems to me that he got the better of Dago and Dago's best response was to say that miko should be deported because he was constantly bashing the Americans.
If I were an American and only had the postings off this board to work from, I think I'd probably rate miko a more useful citizen than Dago...just my view.
Ravs
-
Duedel: i really dont have a problem if all the money / orders goes to allies i.e. back to the tax payers resp
Do you abide by the same rules in your personal spending? No clothes from China, no computer chips from Taiwan? Or is it that you do not mind my money going back to allies? What tax bracket are you in? Are you seriously hit by AMT and speaking truthfully or just exercising your democratic prerogative to spend other people's money?
Duedel: The silly thing about it is the explanatory statement of Wolfowitz. He really is a moron.
No. He is not a moron by far. Wolfowitz is a good student of Leo Strauss and Adolf Hitler where public speec-making is concerned. His speeches sound moronic to you because they are targeted towards general american audience, not literate fellows like you and me. You are just not educated enough to understand that, even though you are smart and educated enough to see the flaws in his speech.
Read Hitler, read some stuff on/about Leo Strauss, read on the neocons, it will be much cleared to you.
vorticon: i could have sworn that cashing in was one of the main principals of the free market ideal that america is using right now...
Free market is economic concept that cannot include coercion. Whe are talking about politics here which is all about coersion. nothing that any government does can be about free market - by definition. Free market exists only where government stays out of it.
Yeager: France and Germany behaved and continue to behave as antagonists to american interests in Iraq, to allow them to bid, assuming they would bid lower, does nothing to improve your interests as an american, let alone as a taxpayer.
??? We need some job done quickly and well. If a private german company can do it better and allow us to pull our troops from danger sooner, how does it hurt me?
Does the same logic apply to buying imported goods from the same german company?
But I doubt Miko is a citizen, and since NOTHING about our country seems to meet his approval
I am a citizen and plenty about this country meets my approval - free market, constitutional liberties, entrepreneural spirit, federalist principle of local governance, separation of government powers, religious but tolerant culture, self-determination, risk-taking and personal responcibility.
Unfortunately every single one of those foundations of american life is being destroyed by your beloved republicrat governments. What do you suggest I should love that the government promotes? Social engineering? Racist policies? Egalitarianism? Corporate welfare? Income redistribution? Corruption of marriage and family? Subcidised breeding of the underclass? Support for tyranical foreign governments?
Dago: He's happy, and we are happy to have him gone.
You will just have to tax Fd Ski that much more.
Dago: Miko, since I do not remember even once you saying anything positive about the USA, about life here or our government, why don't you move out?
About USA - selective memory. I say a lot of positive about it. the most positive thing I can say about USA is that I want to preserve it like it is against USA-haters like you and the rest of republicrats that are destroying it.
I dislike any government that is growing tyrannical.
I could keep posting from other countries, so how would that solve your problem of reading my posts any better than ignore list could?
Why do you arrogantly assume I came to join your political clique and downspiraling socialist culture? Why not assume that I intend to stay here and survive/prosper while your corrupt and decaying way of life desintegrates?
The american settlers did not like the native american lifestyle and culture. So what? the natives disappeared due to suceptibility to imported deseases, alcoholism, love of cheap trinkets and general unsuitabulity of their culture to the changed conditions - and the entrepreneural newcomers are now "americans".
It's not me who should leave. It's your ilk who will leave one way or another so that people like me will have another shot at building a free society on the ruins.
miko
-
Why bother with that "restoration" contracts, if our companies will have to pay 90% of their profits to some arse in US administration for letting them win the tender?...
Better sit down and watch that Bush-friendly contractors stealing US money while Iraqi partizans blow up oil pipelines and keep oil prices high.
Live and let live. Everyone must have his slice.
-
His economic views are dead on
====
I find his economic views, supported in tone by a bias towards socialist economics, distorted, unreliable and suspect.
Economics is a subject best taught by those who have achieved success in the field.
-
Maybe all those countries not supporting the war on terrorism in Iraq should just pull out of Afghanistan.
Another mess gone bad and getting worse.
-
Yeager: I find his economic views, supported in tone by a bias towards socialist economics, distorted, unreliable and suspect.
Since my economic views are as anti-socialist as possible - could you please get some quotes that made you think otherwise? Seriously, I would like to know.
I always supported complete non-interference of government into economy - no regulation, no nationalisation, no licenseing requirements for entering any occupation, no safety regulations whatsoever, no trade restrictions, no control over money issue. I believe that free market would provide better solutons for every single of those issues and said so many times.
Unless you have a very different concept of socialism than I do (state control over ownership, production and distribution), you would have to explain yourself.
Economics is a subject best taught by those who have achieved success in the field.
What do you mean by "success"? If that means "gained employment with the politicians and access to the mainstream media", those would be socialist neo-keynesians like Keynes, Kruger, monetarist, etc. Every serious prediction of theirs bombed.
Price of gold went to $800 instead of dropping to $70 - contrary to their and monetarist predictions but according to Mises & co.
Inflation was found not inversely proportional to unemployment - which is the very foundation of their theory (Phillips Curve), as stagflation period demonstrated - huge inflation and huge unemployment.
How about "no more business cycles, new economy now" when the 1991 boom lasted unusually long - for obvious (to me, not to them) reasons?
How about "the deficit/trade balance" does not matter, the dollar will not fall?
If you mean those who consistently predicted and explained every single economic and social phenomena - often decades in advance, those would be Austrian school.
It's hard for an economist to prosper careerwise in a socialist society when your theory proves unviability of socialism. Nobel prise and other credentials are decided by commeetee voting, not objective reality. Politicians hire yes-men, not opponents. Academia is socialist through and through. How would you expect any free-marketeer to gain popularity?
I predicted stock market collapse in 1999, pulled out and bought house for cash in Spring of 2000.
I predicted that the gold would go down and dollar drop last march - when the gold was $340, not $412.
I posted few weeks ago on how and why to invest in foreign currencies. I bough Australian dollar at $.70, now it's $.74 and going higher.
I said last spring that foreigners will curtail their investments in US despite growth of US economy and that came true as well.
Does that qualify as "achieving success"?
miko
-
Ping: Maybe all those countries not supporting the war on terrorism in Iraq should just pull out of Afghanistan.
They have already. They pulled out and are covering in Kabul while there is much less western presence in the countryside than even during Taliban times.
miko
-
Maybe its better that way Miko. We wouldnt want to accidently hit any of the Pakistan based fighters, They are your allies No?
-
Originally posted by kappa
If we did, how many of those do you think would support ANYTHING our president did??
AoM
I support President Bush!
I'll support his efforts to join the UNEMPLOYMENT line in Texas come 2004 elections!
He may even be able to use his Spanish!
"Donde esta my unemployment check?"
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I find his economic views, supported in tone by a bias towards socialist economics, distorted, unreliable and suspect.
How so?? Please define your scialist economics???
Distorted? Of course all things, no matter who you are, sound distorted when they do not gell with one's own ideals.. Of course, its what we bring from this distortion that counts...
Unreliable and suspect? Well maybe, but remember me this.. In the next 20years (i feel sooner) when the US economy is 8th in the world instead of 1st, remember miko for me... Remember how truths on one day can change so drastically the next. Its coming my friend unless something changes.. Relate america to your personal finances/checkbook. How long could you continue to overspend??
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
I support President Bush!
I'll support his efforts to join the UNEMPLOYMENT line in Texas come 2004 elections!
He may even be able to use his Spanish!
"Donde esta my unemployment check?"
Month of AH says Boooosh is reelected. Confident? Take me up on it.
-
They pulled out and are covering in Kabul while there is much less western presence in the countryside than even during Taliban times.
I wonder where you get all your facts Miko? How long ago was it you left Afghanistan, must have been recent for you to have all the facts. Surely you are not spouting such stuff based on biased news reports. And most all news reports are biased one way or another. I have to assume you have also interviewed or at least had lunch with some world leaders to get their current stand on Afghanistan.
And tell me Miko, why did you come to this country? If you have so many problems with our leaders, and you have such zeal to make things better, why didnt you stay in your native country and work for positive change there?
While you cry out "the sky is falling", some of us realize that this country has withstood great challenges, and only came out better and stronger for it. No one President or his Administration can destroy it, nor in the long term deny us our freedoms. Mistakes may be made, of course they will be, that is inherrant with human interaction, but in the long run things will level out, freedoms lost in reaction to an incident like 9/11 will return. We may never return completely to the way things were, but that is a good thing. We have to accept the world and our nation has and is changing.
I would prefer to secure our borders tighter than allow more enter this county with evil intent. Screening is a good thing.
I wouild prefer to have my trunk checked (as I have nothing to hide) than scream about my civil rights to a private trunk, while the likes of Timothy McVie blow up a Federal building and kill mass numbers of men, women and children.
I prefer to have my baggage searched when I fly than worry about some nut carrying a weapon or bomb onto an aircraft.
I prefer we lock up any suspected terrorists and clear them as soon as possible, then risk them bombing a school, poisoning a water supply because we didn't want to hurt their feelings, or risk them yelling about thier "rights".
And as history has borne out has happened, I prefer we guard against agents from other countries who would wish to stir up dissent here.
No Miko, we are not really in jeopardy of losing all our civil rights. These things will ebb and flow through history and we will find our own legal and proper level with time, we just have to understand the actions and reactions to extreme events, and be patient and vigilant.
Personally, I feared the Clintons and thier liberal friends denying me Constitutional Rights more than I feared it from Bush.
And, I would bet a fair sum that Bush will be relected. Our country needs a strong leader and the Democrats haven't really provided someone who fits that description since JFK.
dago
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Do you abide by the same rules in your personal spending? No clothes from China, no computer chips from Taiwan? Or is it that you do not mind my money going back to allies? What tax bracket are you in? Are you seriously hit by AMT and speaking truthfully or just exercising your democratic prerogative to spend other people's money?
Sorry, i dont understand what u say here cause my english is too bad.
Originally posted by miko2d
No. He is not a moron by far. Wolfowitz is a good student of Leo Strauss and Adolf Hitler where public speec-making is concerned. His speeches sound moronic to you because they are targeted towards general american audience, not literate fellows like you and me. You are just not educated enough to understand that, even though you are smart and educated enough to see the flaws in his speech.
Read Hitler, read some stuff on/about Leo Strauss, read on the neocons, it will be much cleared to you.
Hmm u have a point here, above all when i recall all the, sometimes very pathetic, emotions on this board regarding the so called Anti Americans. But I'm pretty sure that Wolfowitz is a moron (and a big one too) but not in a dumb sense but rather in a sense regarding his political neocon view i.e. he is a madman. In fact I think he's a really danger person cause he has way to much influence on his Bush puppet.
Anyway I'm asking me why he doesnt tell the truth when his explanatory statement is targeted at the "general patriotic american". He surely would have had more succes and wouldnt look like a liar.
-
Dago: I wonder where you get all your facts Miko?
I've read personal reports of humanitarian agencies and see casualty counts every day. Western christian charities that have operated under Taliban are pulling their people out because westerners are being stopped on the roads and executed in afghanistan countryside, especially southern provinces.
The warlords are assuming control again, the opium production eradicated by taliban is skyrocketing again. Simple search would provide plenty of facts and testimonies?
Surely you are not spouting such stuff based on biased news reports.
When they quote a charity worker verbatim saying "we have pulled out", what is teh chance it is all invented? The charity website is right here to verify.
And most all news reports are biased one way or another.
True - right and left are both skewed, so one has to be discriminating and selective and verify the statements. Not difficult to do.
And tell me Miko, why did you come to this country? If you have so many problems with our leaders, and you have such zeal to make things better, why didnt you stay in your native country and work for positive change there?
You are not reading what I posted before and asking the same questions. I came here to succeed personally. My concept of success is apparently very different from yours.
My success does not depend on your civilisation succeeding or even surviving. I'd like to avert the downfall but it is not a realistic goal - I know that.
I post here to open the eyes of a few smart but ignorant people and make them take interest and provide for their personal and their families - just like it was done to me.
While you cry out "the sky is falling",
Falling on you and your socialist welfare state, not necessarily on me.
some of us realize that this country has withstood great challenges, and only came out better and stronger for it.
You assume it will withstand just because it did in the past - or allegedely did, because it lost and defaulted a few times. You have no idea what happened in the past, and why and how conditions are different now. Your faith is blind.
I would prefer to secure our borders tighter than allow more enter this county with evil intent. Screening is a good thing.
One thing that the current administration does not do - neither it is arming the airline pilots.
I wouild prefer to have my trunk checked (as I have nothing to hide) than scream about my civil rights to a private trunk,
Me too. I would also prefer to buy a life-saving drug rather than die before government approves it's use in 15 years. But I am not allowed to. I am not allowed to buy fresh milk. I am not allowed to do many more things that americans were allowed in 1850 or 1902.
Personally, I feared the Clintons and thier liberal friends denying me Constitutional Rights more than I feared it from Bush.
There is no difference between them that one could discern without a microscope. either wone is for bigger government and more socialism.
miko
-
uhm ur calling the USA a "socialist welfare state"?
-
the opium production eradicated by taliban is skyrocketing again.
hahem ... you have to look up this one :)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The warlords are assuming control again, the opium production eradicated by taliban is skyrocketing again.
cool means I get get my Heroine and morphine cheaper now!
Ah... this wasn't a war for oil and not a war against terroism
It's a war for opium! :aok
-
link to cut and paste (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-europe-iraqi-contracts,0,1751565.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines)
By ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press Writer
December 10, 2003, 12:56 PM EST
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The European Union said Wednesday it would examine whether the United States violates world trade rules with its decision to bar countries that opposed its war in Iraq from bidding for $18.6 billion worth reconstruction contracts.
France, Germany and other U.S. allies were angered and surprised by the Pentagon decision -- which forbids bids by countries with no troops in Iraq -- seen as a slap after efforts to patch up the trans-Atlantic divisions over the Iraq war.
Canada suggested it might halt further aid to Iraq, and Russia issued an implicit threat that it would take a harder line on the restructuring of Iraqi debt that Washington seeks.
"I find it really very difficult to fathom," Canada's incoming prime minister, Paul Martin, said of the Pentagon order. Martin, who takes office Friday, said he was "disappointed" -- particularly since Canada has pledged about $225 million for Iraq and has troops in Afghanistan.
In light of the order, "it would be difficult for us to give further money for the reconstruction of Iraq," said Canada's deputy prime minister, John Manley.
The EU executive body, the European Commission, said it would study whether the order violates World Trade Organization rules.
"We are asking the U.S. to provide us with information so we can see whether or not their commitments with regard to the WTO have been respected," said Arancha Gonzalez, trade spokeswoman at the European Commission.
She said the 26 contracts listed on the Pentagon Web site would be examined to see what they cover and whether national security exemptions would apply.
The White House on Wednesday firmly defended the policy, announced in a directive from U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz posted a day earlier on the Pentagon Web site.
"I think it is appropriate and reasonable that prime contracts for reconstruction funded by U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to the Iraqi people and those countries who are working with the United States on the difficult task of helping to build a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq," spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Countries that want to be eligible for bidding should participate militarily, McClellan said -- or they can donate aid.
The directive limits bidders for 26 lucrative contracts in Iraq to firms from the United States, Iraq, their coalition partners and other countries which have sent troops to Iraq.
It says restricting contract bids "is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the United States." Countries that did not sent troops would be eligible for subcontracting work in Iraq.
Wolfowitz wrote that the restrictions would encourage other countries to join the coalition in Iraq. But the initial reaction from other nations pointed more to a backlash.
Germany called the decision "unacceptable." :roflGovernment spokesman Bela Anda said the decision went against "a spirit of looking to the future together and not to the past" after the deep trans-Atlantic rift over the Iraq war.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, meeting with his Russian counterpart in Berlin, said he received the news "with astonishment."
In Moscow, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.
"Iraq's debt to the Russia Federation comes to $8 billion and as far as the Russian government's position on this, it is not planning any kind of a write-off of that debt," he said. "Iraq is not a poor country."
Russian officials have rejected calls by U.S. officials for a complete write-off of Iraq's debt, much of it left over from the Soviet era, but President Vladimir Putin and others have said in the past that they were willing to consider restructuring the debt.
Ivanov appeared to be threatening to take a harder line on restructuring. He did not comment directly on the U.S. decision, but he said that "Russia has great economic interest in Iraq."
In Berlin, Russia's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said the decision contradicted earlier promises by President Bush.
Bush "has stressed several times that ... the Iraqi people themselves should make decisions about their resources," the foreign minister said at the press conference with Fischer.
German and French companies, which have a long history of working in Iraq, have already had low hopes of getting contracts, though some subcontracting has already gone their way.
French telecom giant Alcatel recently became the first French firm to win work in Iraq, winning a subcontract to carry out a third of the two-year contract awarded to Egyptian group Orascom to build a new mobile phone network for central Iraq, including Baghdad. U.S. firm Motorola is the other major partner in the deal.
A leading German industry group said the Pentagon decision seemed in breach of fair-bidding principles for public works agreed among rich nations.
"We suspect that in substance it contradicts the OECD principles for international tenders for public projects, although the United States in particular always calls for observing these principles," said Ludolf von Wartenberg, general manager of the Federation of German Industry.
Over more than a century, Germans built much of modern Iraq -- from Baghdad-Istanbul railway to the central bank building in Baghdad and the national university, along with dams, bridges, roads and canals.
Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press
-
I would also prefer to buy a life-saving drug rather than die before government approves it's use in 15 years.
Maybe you could buy some laetril? Our drug administration is not without faults, but funny that we lead the world in producing life saving drugs, drugs that have been tested and deemed safe. Consider the alternative, untested drugs, with unknown side effects, unknown incompatibilities. At least I feel reasonable safe when prescribed a drug that its use is safe and it actually will help cure me.
But I am not allowed to. I am not allowed to buy fresh milk. I am not allowed to do many more things that americans were allowed in 1850 or 1902.
I wish you could, I would love to hear how you feel about Salmonella. I have had it, its not alot of fun. Since passing laws regarding such things as milk pastureization, illnesses and deaths attributable to food poisoning have dropped dramatically, darned that damned government interference.
Again, these statements just help me believe you would be happier elsewhere, somewhere without pesky regualtion designed to safeguard your health.
When they quote a charity worker verbatim saying "we have pulled out", what is teh chance it is all invented? The charity website is right here to verify.
Yup, all our fault, all ours. The charities worked so well under the Taliban, oh, except for those 2 girls imprisoned for their work.
If you want to rail on about something, do it about something causing real problems, not how you can't buy "fresh" milk. Maybe about religious intolerance in other countries, maybe about tribes in Africa hacking off limbs off of other tribes members, maybe about fanatical muslims killing people for not following Islam.
No, you worry about that great Satan Bush.
dago
-
Originally posted by ravells
If Iraqi money is going to be spent on the reconstruction, shouldn't an interim Iraqi government decide who gets the contracts?
Ravs
That's the problem, it's 18 billion in US money and contracts. Why should we award OUR contracts to the likes of France and Germany while they sit on their arses and complain about us from the safety of their backyards...... all the while we and our allies are on the ground in Iraq?
The US is spending most of the money and taking the risks in Iraq. What have France and Germany done? We should award France and Germany contracts while we take all the risks?
France and Germany ( and Russia) could decide to send troops and then be allowed to bid, and that seems fair to me. If they don't want to help, screw off.
-
My apologies, Godzilla. I had thought that the ultimately the reconstruction would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. I hadn't realised that the US would be giving the aid without any recoupment.
If it's US money going into the recoupment, then yes, sure I don't see why the US should not have a free rein as to whom the contracts are awarded to. Although Miko does make a good point that if France etc. put in a better bid they ought to be considered from the point of view of being better value to the US taxpayer - I don't think that price is the only consideration.
I only hope that there is a level playing field between the companies in the bids and that companies like Halliburton do not obtain unfair advantages.
Ravs
-
I was reading that British companies have not been given any major contracts.
So no matter how many troops you have there, it doesn't seem to matter.
-
Just heard a vague report that the list was put on the Pentagons web site just hours before Bush called France, Russia, and Germany to ask them to forgive The Iraqi debt.
If true thats Hillarious :D . Fantastic timing wouldn't you say?
-
Bush is making so many new friends
sad:confused:
-
Dago: Our drug administration is not without faults, but funny that we lead the world in producing life saving drugs, drugs that have been tested and deemed safe.
You confuse "because of" and "despite of". Yes, our drug industry has not been killed yet but many people needlessly suffered and died.
Consider the alternative, untested drugs, with unknown side effects, unknown incompatibilities. At least I feel reasonable safe when prescribed a drug that its use is safe and it actually will help cure me.
I did consider the alternative. There is a difference between licensing and certification. I would look for a label on a medicine saying "Certified by the FDA" - or any private accreditation institution like Consumer Union, AMA or Underwriters Laboratories or maybe a foreign equivalent. Or maybe I have three months to live and do not care much about side-effects that take 10 years to verify.
Do you know how much faster would a drug approval go and how much safer the drugs would be if dying people were allowed to use the drugs still in testing? How much additional data would be accumulated to benefit those of us who would wait?
Do you know how many people needlessly died because Bayer could not advertise aspirin (which was in use for over 100 years) as heping prevent death after heart attacks?
It was a common knowlege in medical community, but untill the few years have passed, they could not even claim that with "(Not verified by FDA)" disclaimer.
Do you know how many people are dying from the rear deseases because due to FDA restrictions it is not possible to produce a drug unless it is used by a huge market? 10-year testing process is so ecpensive that unless you have millions of patients, it does not pay to bother? So all companies produce dozens of versions of redundant headache medicines but none for rare kinds of cancers, etc.
Maybe those few thousand people dying from them would be willing to use less tested medicine - and serve as test subjects in the process.
Maybe people would prefer cheaper and less safe drug to no drug at all?
But we are denied free choice. Informed willing adults cannot perform a transaction because it offends sensibilities of a third-party socialist bisybody like you who "knows better what we need".
I wish you could, I would love to hear how you feel about Salmonella. I have had it, its not alot of fun. Since passing laws regarding such things as milk pastureization, illnesses and deaths attributable to food poisoning have dropped dramatically, darned that damned government interference.
You are an ignorant. You see obvious side-effect but miss many others. People drank raw milk for millenia. I drank raw milk for 25 years in Soviet Union - not the most sanitary of places - and have never even heard of anyone getting salmonella.
My whole family - including my 2-year old, has been drinking raw milk for over half a year now. I get if from a farm 150 miles from where I live and it holds 2 weeks in a refrigerator.
The government regulations actually make it more dangerous for me because I would rather buy fresh milk every day than risk 2-week old milk.
There were no deadly epidemics before 1930 when the laws were enacted. Since the laws were pushed through by political lobbies, enormous progress occured in technology - every farm now has cooling equipment, access to refrigerate transportation, desinfecting and testing methods, etc. Milk was safe before and is safer now.
Maybe you've got your salmonella because your immune system is not up to the task - because of the government-approved crap you are eating that has essential nutrients and coenzymes destroyed?
Just how did you get that salmonella? Isn't it supposed to be impossible - or rather illegal - for a law-abiding serf like you? Did you eat some non-approved food? You should turn yourself in to DHS or CDC for punishment, you salmonella-getting traitor. :)
Again, these statements just help me believe you would be happier elsewhere, somewhere without pesky regualtion designed to safeguard your health.
You believe that because you are not very smart and do not understand what I am saying. I - personally - am doing OK. I can see the fallacy of the government labels and disregard them. I can find what is good for me and get it - food, medicine, etc. Government makes it harder for me but I can do it here - despite the governmenmt - probably easier than anywhere else. It's the dumb and poor people who you are trying to protect that suffer most from junk food and restrictions on private businesses.
Yup, all our fault, all ours. The charities worked so well under the Taliban, oh, except for those 2 girls imprisoned for their work.
You are ignorant again. I've read their interview. They admitted violating the agreement with government and performng actions they promised not to. They tried to convert muslims into christianity which is forbidden by Koran.
I do not consider such people "humanitarian helpers". They are missionaries and they should be ready to die for spreading their beliefs. And those two were ready.
I do not care which religious nut gets himself killed - christian shoving a Bible down peope's throats or a mullah doing the same with a Koran.
People who actually provided humanitarian help - medicine, edication, food, clothes - to the afghanis were not molested by Taliban.
Those real humanitarians were mad as hell at those two scoundrels - for jeopardising legitimate charities by using humanitarian help as a cover for their illegal religious prpoaganda.
do it about something causing real problems, not how you can't buy "fresh" milk.
Could I buy a donor organ? What? I can't? Because it offends your sensibilities? You woudl rather allow a prospective donor to stay poor and prospective recepient to die so youc an feel better? OK.
Maybe about religious intolerance in other countries,
How do you know I don't? This board is promarily dadicated to US politics and I am talking about US politics here. I talk about other topics in thne appropraite forums.
maybe about tribes in Africa hacking off limbs off of other tribes members, maybe about fanatical muslims killing people for not following Islam.
Our government should stop supporting those regimes, I've always said that.
No, you worry about that great Satan Bush.
He has much more effect on my life than some guy in Africa, so it's only natural that my concern about him has priority.
miko
-
Originally posted by Duedel
uhm ur calling the USA a "socialist welfare state"?
He calls me a communist.. :)
-
lol Damn Miko2d... that was a good read..
k
AoM
-
I love watching this. miko posts something, then ravells and kappa chime in telling him how smart he is. Every time. It reminds me of those old WB cartoons.
"huh spike? can we? huh? huh? Can I say it next?"
-
lol then martlet chimes in w/ something rediculous that no one really cares to read... sad sad sad.. 8( lmao
k
AoM
-
"Communism" is just a kind of a "socialism" also known as "collectivism".
Socialist state is when a governmental controls production and distribution while claiming to be acting in the interest of the population and appealing to the population for support.
Outright ownership of the production factors by the state is communism.
When the nominal ownership of the production factors is reserved to the private individuals but the actual control is accomplished by the state through laws, regulations and government spending, that's socialism or fascism. Property is labeled as private but is actually owned by the government to a considerable degree.
In the absence of private property, the economic calcualtion is impossible and the fully socialist society not viable. The reason for that is that market prices - which are the way information is transmitted - cannot exist.
There is no "third way" between free market and socialism. Any intermediate state is unstable and socialism increases unless it is being decreased. The reason for that is the government intervention always causes the results undesirable from the perspective of the initiators of that intervention and necessitates more and ever-expanding interventions to deal with the consequenses untill all economy is socialist.
Those two theorems are major foundations of the Austrian (neo-classical) school of economics.
I do claim that US society is substantially - mostly socialist, while retaining some vestiges of the free-market system.
Free market is so efficient that even tiny proportion of it can produce a lot of wealth. For instance, the tiny (about 1 acre) private parsels of soviet pesants were 40 times more productive than collective farms and provided significant part - about half - of the food production in the Soviet Union.
- The government spending on all levels is over 50% of the national spending. So we have half socialist right there.
- Considerable amounts of assets are owned by the governments - in case of federal government in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
- Regulations and restrictions of property rights severely limit the ownership and use of the property that nominally reminds in private posession.
That is impossible to calculate mathematically but I'd say that US is about 10% free-market and 90% socialist and that 10% could be taken away any time.
miko
-
Well....twice Martlett.
On each occasion it was because someone who was losing the argument with miko resorted to the 'if you don't like it here go back to Russia' reply.
I guess that sort of response just gets me riled up a little.
I've had my disagreements with miko in the past (particularly his view of no government intervention in business stance).
Ravs
-
ravells: I guess that sort of response just gets me riled up a little.
Why bother reading? Do you expect to see an iota of content in those posts?
I've had my disagreements with miko in the past (particularly his view of no government intervention in business stance).
I'd love for you to present a clear cut example of a government economic intervention that you consider justified I would try to respectfully blow it up.
It would be free education for at least one of us and the public as well.
miko
-
Miko,
banning of child labor
-
Miko - posted a new thread with your name on it.
En-garde! :)
Ravs
-
fd ski: banning of child labor
In modern times - prevents idle teenagers from contributing to economy, earning some money and aquiring valuable work habits instead of getting in trouble.
In early capitalist times - prevented families desperate enough (due to natural pre-existing scarcity) to send children to work from the best option they had, causing them to fall back to even worse option (starvation, back-breaking long-hours outdoor field work, crime, prostitution, begging).
Benefited some unionised workers by raising their wages at the expense of consumers who had fewer and more expensive products - thus lowering everybody's real wages.
As capital per worker accumulated and productivity/production increased, causing the corresponding increase in real labor wages, family wealth increased and the supply of child labor dried up naturally. The ban on it slowed down that process and hurt those it was supposedely ment to help.
Of course the increase in wealth and welfare was mis-attributed to intentional actions of people - labor policies, etc. while it was a purely natural process of capital accumulation developing despite such policies.
Care to address each of those points with your counter-arguments?
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
fd ski: banning of child labor
In modern times - prevents idle teenagers from contributing to economy, earning some money and aquiring valuable work habits instead of getting in trouble.
miko
And the Nazi's used child labor to polish the inside of artilery barrels - because they have small hands.
And in India carpet makers use childred because they have small and nimble hands able to weave the thread through the looms.
-
In modern times - prevents idle teenagers from contributing to economy, earning some money and aquiring valuable work habits instead of getting in trouble.
While I can agree with valuable work habit, earning some money is questionable :)
Contributing to economy ?
Large number of children entering the labor market at age of 5 would cause unemplomeny to sore. How even if you would argue that "contribution to the economy" might be indefinite, I'm sure you'd agree that law of diminishing returns also applies to same ?
Getting into trouble is a whole separate issue :)
In early capitalist times - prevented families desperate enough (due to natural pre-existing scarcity) to send children to work from the best option they had, causing them to fall back to even worse option (starvation, back-breaking long-hours outdoor field work, crime, prostitution, begging).
Benefited some unionised workers by raising their wages at the expense of consumers who had fewer and more expensive products - thus lowering everybody's real wages.
Moralist or union plot - i agree with reasons.
As capital per worker accumulated and productivity/production increased, causing the corresponding increase in real labor wages, family wealth increased and the supply of child labor dried up naturally. The ban on it slowed down that process and hurt those it was supposedely ment to help.
Of course the increase in wealth and welfare was mis-attributed to intentional actions of people - labor policies, etc. while it was a purely natural process of capital accumulation developing despite such policies.
Your contention that child labor would have ended by itself, while in economic principal correct has yet to be proven in practice.
While I agree with some of your free-market ideas, you are working on the assumption that markets are fully self-correcting. I find that optimistic, or should I say, idealistic.
It is based on the assumption that all people think in the rational "profit maximization" fashion, this isn't always a case, numberous studies proved that people are not always clearly profit oriented.
You also contend that free-markets will force change due to increasing effectiveness of changed business vs one that doesn't accept it - consequently going out of business. I think it can be said that most people avoid change best they can. Same applies to businesses.
Did banning of child labor lower real wages of all ? I think you may be right. However, didn't it also contribute to overall better trained work force couple decades later ?
Weak child cannot fully compete in physical and mental levels with an adult, and in free market economy it would be reflected in their pay. I'm sure you'd say that businesses would rather pay for more capable adult, however in practice I find that anything walking on two feet will do. This would cause labor markets to shift to ever younger age, while leaving those most capable unemployed - thus brining down the price of thier labor till equalibrium was found. As such everyone's real wages also suffer by child labor.
Whole moral discussion on this issue could be left to those who care for those things :)
By the same token, do you think that slavery would have gone away on its own ?
-
DmdNexus: And the Nazi's used child labor to polish the inside of artilery barrels - because they have small hands.
I am talking about free market - which implies the abcense of coercion. Nazis coercing children is as bad as them coercing adults.
And in India carpet makers use childred because they have small and nimble hands able to weave the thread through the looms.
If those children had a better option, they would not be making money weaving.
They kill excess girls in India. You do not let a girl weave, her newborn sister goes to feed the pigs instead of to school at her sister's earnings. Which must be OK with bleedong-heart liberals - as long as it is done out of sight.
miko
-
fd ski: Contributing to economy ?
Large number of children entering the labor market at age of 5 would cause unemplomeny to sore.
Assuming you are talking about early times where there was supply of child labor - due to lack of capitalism, not because of it. You are commiting the typical "limited amount of work fallacy".
With more goods produced the prices would fall - thus driving down the product prices and raising the real wages.
Higher profits would make more money available for investment - driving real interests down.
Lower factor prices and lower interest would make more production viable, so it will expand
Higher real wages would allow to cut nominal wages while still increasing the worker's welfare. With lower salaries, more workers will be hired, not less - in the businesses that suddenly became profitable.
That is simple - if more resources are employed rather than stay idle, the total amount of goods increases while the population stays the same. Everyone benefits, since due to competition the production factors (including labor)necessarily receive their marginal utility. With more capital accumulated and limiter labor amount, it's marginal utility would - and does increase compared to other factors - capital and raw materials. So the workers would receive more compared to capitalists, who's returns - as reflected by the interest rates - would fall.
There is always more demand for more and better goods to be satisfier. And even if there were-not, which is impossible, the people who's demand was totally satisfied would have stopped working, freeing worlplaces for those who needed work.
Persistent unemployment is theoretically impossible in a free-market capitalism - and did not exist in practice.
There was unemployment in the early stages - due to inflow of people from the outside of capitalist environment. Once capitalism spread everywhere, it disappeared - except for immigrants, of course.
In modern times, the percistent unemployment is purely due to restrictive labor laws that do not allow workers to offer the employers the good terms. If a worker would make an employer $4.50 and he is not allowed to accept a job for less tham $5, he will hav no job at all.
Your contention that child labor would have ended by itself, while in economic principal correct has yet to be proven in practice.
In soclieties where capitalism has not yet developed - sure. When most of the population is outside of division-of-labor market economy - in subcistence farming and the numbers are kept steady by starvation of children to death and deseases, there will be desperate families.
They suffer from natural scarcity and the natural scarcity is caused by scarcity of capital.
The last thing you want is discourage capitalists from accumulating the capital.
While I agree with some of your free-market ideas, you are working on the assumption that markets are fully self-correcting. I find that optimistic, or should I say, idealistic.
They are. And I am not idealistic at all. Nowhere in my logic there is a dependence on a good will or charity of anyone involved. Capitalists are forced to pay the marinal utility of labor by competition from other capitalists, not by goodness of their hearts.
There is no moral component here whatsoever. Just like capitalists have to pay market-clearing price for material factors, same for labor factors. True - salaries started low in the ealy times. Since the productivity (production per person) increased due to capital accumulation outpacing the population increase, the minimum wage is naturally getting bigger. If itw as possible to survive on it 200 years ago, it must provide a better level of living now - or would without the government intervention like price support artificially increasing the price of goods and limiting production.
It is based on the assumption that all people think in the rational "profit maximization" fashion, this isn't always a case, numberous studies proved that people are not always clearly profit oriented.
That just means that a capitalist may not go for the biggest monetary gain - thus providing the most value to customers and most employment - but rather for some other cause like preservationof nature, chariry, etc. So what? It's his money.
His failure to invest will make capital scarcer, cause interest rates to raise and that may induce another person to invest more.
The studies are bogus because they only consider monetary profit rather than all subjective valuations - which are impossible to measure, so the empiricists do not bother with them.
Human choice is always a selection of better subjective outcome to the less desirable one - by definition.
Did banning of child labor lower real wages of all ? I think you may be right.
No, I said it lowered nominal wages but increased the real wages. More goods, same number of people - salary buys more.
I'm sure you'd say that businesses would rather pay for more capable adult, however in practice I find that anything walking on two feet will do. This would cause labor markets to shift to ever younger age, while leaving those most capable unemployed - thus brining down the price of thier labor till equalibrium was found. As such everyone's real wages also suffer by child labor.
No - real wages would be increased because a grown-up would not be wasted doing a job that can be done by a child. So the total production would increase - and the consumption per person as well.
At some point the marginal utility of each dollar brough by a child will drop below having that child stay home and go to school - so he earns better return.
Instead of investing a child's time in immediate production to stave off the urdent need - like starvaton, the child labor will be invested into schooling so he/she earns more in the future. What do you think the school is about?
It's labor, all right. One way or another the child's efforts are invested and only the family can determine priorities right.
miko
-
Originally posted by Dago
As if there is anything they could do about it, what a bunch of greedy turds. I know, go complain to the UN, and we can veto your resolutions.
dago
well
so why did 'coalition' ask other countries for money for rebuild of iraq ?
anyway we had one of best positions in trading in iraq but we lost all of 580 tenders and we were consider to be one of most reliable ally
im loking forward to see or prime minister trying to defend himself..... i hope there will be some public vulching :D
anyway the facts that US companies got contracts w/o tender in US was forgoten
fact that Bush got about 50 mil. US from companies whitch got contracts for 8 bill. USD (w/o tender) is quite democratic as well
lol lets 'free' enterprise :D
-
Originally posted by ravells
If Iraqi money is going to be spent on the reconstruction, shouldn't an interim Iraqi government decide who gets the contracts?
Ravs
no coz they arent as smart as Bush`s administration is and they could buy some crappy technology :D
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
US goes to war, many American's die for another stupid Rich man's cause, US congress allocates big bucks to reconstruct Iraq..
Countries who opposed US breaking of international law, such as France, Germany, Russia, and China see an opportunity to make some cash... so they come in, win the contracts, their own people get the work, and get the take the money to their banks.
check reality man
you probably didnt hear about meeting in Spain, when 'coalition' was crying, that they realy need some money from EU for iraqi reconstruction...
So they got some
well but its not problem, it seems that China will show you how to lose money :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I was reading that British companies have not been given any major contracts.
So no matter how many troops you have there, it doesn't seem to matter.
well since Blair have hard times at home, its not problem to fotget on UK, coz anger will fall on head of falling prime minister
according to our prime minister, we were excelent ally in iraq and lost all of 585 tenders ..
2 months ago all other countries were asking us, how can you have sutch good trade, diplomatic possition in iraq ? :rofl
-
Kappa,
Since I dont normally pay much attention to you, have you ever said where you are from?
-
Originally posted by Godzilla
The US is spending most of the money and taking the risks in Iraq. What have France and Germany done? We should award France and Germany contracts while we take all the risks?
heeh and who exactly invited you to Iraq ?
since no WMD were found, nor Osama Salma Blablama, you only vulched half of country ....
the only one thing you should do is appology to Iraq and give them 18 bill. of US as "we are very sorry for turning your country into smoking crap"
and not to force them what to buy ...
this is not only unfair to free trade .... it could be called economical terrorism, since you force them to buy from you.
iraqi is not country full of sheep, its country full of people, whitch know very well how to take care of themself
or not ?
-
whitch know very well how to take care of themself
Oh yes, and they did such a wonderful job of it under Saddam, if you ignore all those who took care of themselves into those popular mass graves. Oh yeah, and those girls who volunteered to be tortured and raped by Uday. etc etc etc.
sheesh
-
girls are raped all over the world, they were, they will
Saddam ? come on .... nobody went there to free people from Sadam...
how many years did you never mind about zillion of dead iraqi ??
what changed your mind that now you realy mind that some of them has been killed
actualy what did you do in times when those thousands of people were executed ?
well i think that these times, US were scared of uprising of Shia, so US left them in it alone, so Sadam killed most of them w/o problem coz US had no balls to help them as promised before...
and now you gonna tell me about poor iraqi beeing secured by cool US ?
lol there is no blood on US`s hands... no not realy
they hate US only coz they dont wear veil :D
man if you want to speak about sutch things, get some informations first
-
You are the one who said they can take care of themselves, I just wondered what you meant.
Dont try and change the subject, tell me how wonderfully they took care of themselves.
this is not only unfair to free trade .... it could be called economical terrorism, since you force them to buy from you.
What are you talking about, you aren't even in the ballpark of making common sense. This thread is about the US limiting who can bid on contracts we are putting out for bid, contracts we are awarding to improve Iraq, with US money. Who is being forced to "buy" anything?? We are the buyers in case you havent figured it out.
Where you from? I always wonder why some dont bother identifying where they are from.
dago
-
Beep beep, Earth to Dago: Get an education!
To GScholz, when you gonna change your handle to Himmler or Hitler, if you worship Nazis, might as well worship the top ones.
dago
-
Originally posted by maslo
heeh and who exactly invited you to Iraq ?
Who invited Iraq into Kuwait? What eventually happened to Iraq can only be attributed to Iraq's action in Kuwait and their failure to live up to the cease fire agreements after the 1st war, but Im sure facts don't much matter to a guy like you.
Ironic, now that we are in Iraq France and Germany now have no problem going in as long as they can make money and don't have send troops or otherwise lift a finger to help.
France and Germany did more to ensure a war than avoid it by their actions. France in particular demanded the "use of force" wording in the "final" UN "last" chance be removed. This showed Iraq that they had hope and that they didnt have to fully comply to avoid war.
If only France and Germany united and stood behind the UN resolutions and backed them up with the threat of force, this war probably would not have happened..... that is unless Iraq refused to again comply.
Instead we had the UN resolutions STILL being ignored with no consequences. Makes a lot of sense, uh? Good way to show the world how increadibly toothless the UN is.
Now we have the resolutions complied with and Saddam gone. .... How exactly is that bad again?
-
lol GScholz, you crack me up. really. and to think i was about to send you an email and try and settle this nonsense.
As you once said "I dont have to prove anything, this is not a court of law". :rofl
dago
-
BTW, I respect Germanys involvement in Afghanistan, they are putting money and more important, troops on the line in the fight against terrorism.
More than a lot of countries can say. I wouldnt be opposed to them being allowed to bid on contracts. Russia and France have yet to step up that I know of.
Godzilla made a couple good points.
dago
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
And the Nazi's used child labor to polish the inside of artilery barrels - because they have small hands.
That was an excuse Oskar Schindler used to save entire families of Schindler Juden. Oskar was a member of the Nazi party, but did not use children to polish insides of ordinance.
-
Actually I thought what was really funny was the next day Bush asking France,Germany and Russia to wipe clean the billions of dollars owed in loans to them by Iraq.
Amazing how (so frequently) short sighted Bush is.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Amazing how (so frequently) short sighted Bush is.
This isnt amazing this is Bush.
-
I thought US brought freedom to the iraqis... now they're only given one option to choose from? :( :rofl
-
I think the definition of Freedom is that which is dictated to us by the ruling powers of the time.
Politics Suck! And most politicians are Scum Sucking Bottom Feeders.
-
Nice round-up on the Vetos GScholz - you really cut the arguing about that! :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What missiles did the French sell to Iraq, and when?
The USS Stark was hit with an Exocet, fired from a Mirage. (Yeah I know it was pre GW1, but your question had no time frame)
When did France veto the US?
Oct / Nov 2002, the US did not advance an Iraq SC resolution due to France and Russia's opposition. (read virtual veto) This seems to be the SOP for the SC now, not forcing the issue if you know a veto is coming.
The majority of the US vetos have been on the issue of Israel / Palestine. The US vetoed 8 resolutions since 1996, China 2.
France and Britain had their last vetoes in the decade of 1986-95.
I don't have a point here, but in order to argue, I must take a contrarian position. ;)
-
Bush sais that these countries cant get contracts, and thats fine. I have no problem with that. Let US and UK companys get those contracts and let those countries pay those companys.
But hey !, next thing bush sais to Canada, Germany, France etc.. to clear Iraqs debt to them....NO NO. Give the countries that Iraq owes money to some contracts for the same amount of $
(http://forum.hardware.no/html/emoticons/wallbash.gif)
Bush and Blair has destroyed Iraq so let them pay for the rebuild. All money made on iraqi oil should go straight to the iraqi goverment (when its rebuildt).
-
As yet, no British company has been given a major contract, even though we have many specialist operations with the capacity (such as P&O and other maritime corporations) - the bidding process was closed to all non-American companies.
-
Mr Bush belives that the world is his sandbox and that he may do as he pleases..
Some day he will wake up and find that there is something out there besides his ego. Just hope he wont find it the hard way.
How did you like that Martlet? :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
.
How did you like that Martlet? :D
he's gonna pop a blood vessel....watch:D