Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on October 10, 2000, 11:47:00 AM
-
Many non-americans and quite a few americans may not know that fact.
US is a big country and population here is very mobile. Whenever someone's family social status changes even slightly, the family usually moves into a place where people with similar social status live.
That is why we have neighbourhoods/towns that differ enourmously - more then any two european countries fiffer from each other. I am not talking France from Italy here. I am talking France and Albania or Kosovo.
Inhabitants of well-to do neighbourhoods may have no idea what the living condition in bad neighbourhoods are and most people never visit them in their lifetime.
We know that unfortunately in our country the aftican-americans are disproportionately represented in the underprivileged social group. So those neighbourhoods are different from other neighbourhoods not onlt by their living standards but by their natonal origin as well.
The tragedy of african-american neighbourhoods is perpetuated by the fact that once a family manages to achieve a higher income level it immediately moves into a better neighbourhood. Kind of natural selection in reverse - all positive example and influence is removed.
We may assume that there are many countries with quite different ways of life and national/racial content all bundled under one label USA. That can screw up statistics quite a bit.
In US with our gun ownership the rate of murder, especially gun-related is much higher then in european countries. That seems to indicate that guns are the root of the evil.
Consider that according to the more detailed statistics one of the three african-american males ages 16 to 30 (?) is either in prison or on parole. Violence is the leading cause of death of the black males in the same age group. Drug-related violence (turf wars) is something that european countries do not have and it is also localised in the same neighbourhoods.
My point is. If we consider gun-related and general murder rates among the white americans (not for racial, but for territorial reasons), they will not be higher then european countries or Israel (where most people are armed).
People that leave in regular neighbourhoods - white, black and asians are no more prone to violence then any european people.
Situation in unfortunate neighbourhoods - so called "inner cities"(mostly black) is so dire, that statistics for the whole country shoots straight to the top.
What would the politicians do? Instead of going where the crime is actually takes place , they go after the law-abiding citizens.
Why? I venture to guess the following reasons:
1. It is easier to make law-abiding citizens to do something then to help unfortunates against real criminals. So a policy may be successfull when reporting how many guns were removed from the hands of the population, no matter that the murder rate did not drop at all.
If the drug gangs can bring into the country thousands of tonnes of drugs, it will be much easier for them to bring or manufacture the illegal firearms - they are much more compact, the dogs cannot smell them and they require iron for manufacture - not fancy substance.
2. Using the ever persisting threat of gun-violence happening elsewhere, they can disarm the population. It is not in their interest to actually solve the problem. It provides the needed statistics and news without actually affecting 99% of american soil.
Once a dictator takes power in the unarmed nation, that problem can be solved by gassing pesky neighbourhoods - after all nobody will have the power to protect the rights of innocents.
There is no other way to exert somebody's will on unwilling people then violence (all forms of legal punishment included). The only way to resist is with a threat of opposing violence. A man who gives up his right to own a weapon is surrendering himself to the will of anyone who would resort to using violence. That man is a slave already - nobody just bothered to claim him yet.
A man with a gun can defend his freedom or die as a free man. A man without a gun can choose to live as a slave or die as a slave.
Of course anyone really intersted in helping bad neighbourhoods would send more police there, make them pay more attenton, catch criminals and remove guns from their hands. Unfortunately it is illegal because it is caused raciall profiling by other people - white and black politicians leaving in good neighbourhoods.
If there are 12% of blacks in the country, 88% of all criminals caught must be white/asians despite all the statistics above.
I live in a neighbourhood with many people of russian origin and deal with them a lot. If I heard that police concentrated their efforts on catching russian-american criminals to the detriment of other groups, I would be happy. The less criminals where I live - the better. Even if my car is stopped more often them average american's - as long as they are polite, of course.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
"A man with a gun can defend his freedom or die as a free man. A man without a gun can choose to live as a slave or die as a slave."
Wow! Can you say, "Brainwashed"?
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Miko.. I can't quite put a finger on it.. but there is something about your posts that simply rub me the wrong way. I believe it is your use of the "lower class" citizens in the argument.
This is the second time you've done it. Though, this one is not as bad as using the lower class citizens to justify the need for abortion in order to better society. It is, however, a close second.
AKDejaVu
-
Igloo,
I lived 25 years in a communist country as a member of a suppressed minority and access to the information from abroad.
I lived and fought in different countries - with drastically different customs - not as a tourist.
I left Russia with $90, arrived to US with less and received welfare. Now I am in top $5 of the income. And I am not running my business or trading stocks - I am a technologist in a very competitive workplace. People who pay my salary are sure I am smart and educated.
I have two high educations, friends from and in many countries and with different believes.
I served as a gunner through commander of a tank platoon.
I was faced with violence and chose to give up money because did not think it worth the risk.
On other occasions I was faced with violence which I could not decline and had to defend myself with deadly force. "You can decline a drink or a conversation but if a man offers you a fight, you have to oblige..." - who said that?
I was exposed to the whole spectrum of real political and religious propaganda.
I read Karl Marks, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Chirchill, Manstein, Zukov and plenty of other people first-hand (translated, of course).
I do not hunt and I do not own a single gun yet - an air-gun and three bows.
If I was any more open minded, the rain would pour into my neck.
Read your history - the civilized population of developed countries were brought under the heel of dictators on this century. You think it cannot happen to you? You think canadians would ever be as civilised and sophisticated as germans (who ended up with Hitler) were in the beginning of the past century? You think that any government in the worls would ever be as educated as the first communist government in Russia?
Then you are ignorant.
If a thug or three meet you in the dark place and proceed to rape your wife (or you) and you have no intention to resist, aren't you a slave from the moment you made that decision?
If you lived in a place/time where you had to defend yourself every day, you would not argue about owning a gun.
Of course now we do need to do that, so why have the guns?
I do not need a fire extinguisher - I never needed to use it in the past...
You would probably believe that there is a fireman always on hand wnen you need it.
You live in a cosy quiet place and think what you see on TV would never happen to you? Your children? Grandchildren? Good luck!
You know the word "brainwashed" and ready to throw it on anyone without knowing their background or a single word to justify your classification.
You did not care about the distorted statistics already forced on us by our government or whoever worms his way on top in the future, about many other lies coming from it, but you would continue to trust it to the extent of disarming us?
You disagree with many policies of our government already - you think that abortions should be legal (but they were and may be banned), that abortion after 5 months is murder (see - I read your posts), that guns should not be allowed. There are many other things done by the government that you or other people don't agree. Do you think in the future we would not get anything worse? Capital punishment for drug-related crime? For abortion/murder? Forced abortions? Forced sterilisations? Taking children away from their parents for spanking them? For allowing them to overeat? For their better good in state-owned scientifically-based creches? Jailing people for harming their unborn children by the bad lifestyle? Making doctors violate their patient confidentiality oath and report such things to the state? All those things are quite legal in many countries (and the highlighted ones - in modern US).
What planed do you live on?
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
Miko,
Igloo is a product of PC thought and speech. He has not had any direct experiance in much of life (I am inferring this from his posts) and as such does not know a few things.
1. The world does not want to be saved.
2. The world will actively fight you to keep from being saved.
3. The world is not the nice suburban neighborhood you may see around you.
4. There are genuine truly evil people in the world who view others as prey.
5. Few people are willing to put thier lives on the line to serve society. Most are only interested in making bigger bucks and telling others how to live.
Mav
-
What in the world does that have to do with:
"A man with a gun can defend his freedom or die as a free man. A man without a gun can choose to live as a slave or die as a slave."
Sorry, that's just wrong.
A man name Gandhi once proved it.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Miko.. I can't quite put a finger on it.. but there is something about your posts that simply rub me the wrong way. I believe it is your use of the "lower class" citizens in the argument.
I know, I do not like to read it myself. But that is a fact - in US the living conditions, achievements and opportunities many of the black people enjoy (I should say suffer) are terrible compared to the average.
Instead of helping those people and applying the efforts where they would do most good, the politicians prefer to go after easier targets using those unfortunates as an excuse for their "more government control, more spending" propaganda.
Most of the official anti-abortion and anti-violence propaganda is aimed at the average american but average american does not have those problems. That kind of propaganda is very inefficient among the really troubled neighbourhoods. But what would our Harward-educated politicians know about the conditions there?
They use words in their slogans I have problem understanding - let alone 14-year old girl with a kid in the inner city who does know how to read.
How about removing tests from school trailing schools (mostly in the black neighbourhoods - what a surprise) to remove "the pressure of competitivness" and personal achieving that is not good for the students? Let them find their fulfillment in cooperation, not results! Isn't that officially declaring them less cabable then white people? Much easier to get rid of grades then actually try to teach them something. Charter schools successfuly teaching the same black kids to the regular standards? Cannot promote them and have the vote of teachers unions at the same time.
Their affirmative action prigrams in their current state help people who have the least need in that help and many self-made blacks are against them.
A black person who managed to proster coming from those conditions should be the most desirable catch for any employer. Unfortunately many companies do not hire them for the following reasons: 1. They are afraid that they would get sued if they ever ned to hire that person. 2. They are afraid that they got into the college they graduated and stayed there because of the affirmative action quotas, not their merit.
For that reason the companies I know fill the "affirmative action" quota with janitors and cafeteria workers and not black specialists or executives.
Then an average dumb american seing all-white techical and executive staff and mostly black janitorial/menial stuff subconciously gets the ideas about the place of blacks in the society.
It is a common fact that such neighbourhoods are highly localised. Definitely in and arount New York. So we do have a predominantly black, low-income, high-crime neighbourhoods. I do not think that pretending they do not exist would help them any.
Rest assured, AKDejaVu - I would call myself a racist if I considered myself one. Even though I do not believe that all the races are equal in all the respects (based on the data I saw), the disparity in the lifestyles goes much beyong any possible disparity in abilities even if there is one.
I just prefer that real problems were solved by means that work - not unsubstantiated wishfull thinking and "feel good" solutions. "Hartless" welfare cuts with economical incentives proved a blessing, not a disaster for most affected families. And it took what, 30 years of ever-increasing spending and ever-worsening poverty to do that?
If an innocent black person has a greater chance to be politely stopped by police and released few minutes later and that would significantly increase the chance to catch a criminal, I would not argue about that. Police are charged with catching criminals and they know who to stop to acieve that. As long as they are acting legally, fine with me. If they are not acting legally, they are not police anymore but criminals. Any occupation has those.
If a black girl decides to have an abortion because she is not ready to raise a child - I would not vote to stop her. Her daughter will have less need for an abortion if born to self-reliant grown women.
If gun-crime is rampant in teh black neigbourhoods, do not tolerate it in order to score election points by attacking NRA and second amendment. Do something to protect them.
If thousands of mostly of blacks are killed because of drugs in turf wars and robberies and die of poisoning and overdoses, make the damn things legal, cheap and clean.
P.S. I admire the wording of your post! Most people would just blast the messenger if they do not like the message, rather then inquiring if what they perceive is what a person really means and why he does so.
It's a pleasure to talk to you. <S>
miko
-
"I live in a neighbourhood with many people of russian origin and deal with them a lot. If I heard that police concentrated their efforts on catching russian-american criminals to the detriment of other groups, I would be happy. The less criminals where I live - the better. Even if my car is stopped more often them average american's - as long as they are polite, of course."
Miko, now imagine that you are a Caucasian in Moscow, like the one Azerbaijanian surgeon who lives in an apartment next to mine.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Many racists do not consider themselves as such. I believe you fall into that category.
Racism: If 40% of people in prison are black, then blacks commit 40% of the crime, even though they consist of only 18% of the population. Therefor, keeping a closer eye on blacks will help reduce crime.
Substitute "lower class" for blacks in the above and you are just as guilty. Singling out people because of race is racism... no matter how noble the cause.
My main problem is that you seem to use racial/social classifications to justify the need for unusual measures... or unusual statistics. It is almost as if there is a "they are dragging us down" undertone.
This was greatly manifested in the "abortion for the good of society" argument. It was more of an implication in this thread. Guns in the hands of the wrong people is a problem. Trying to forecast who the wrong people are based on race or social standing is even more of a problem.
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
What in the world does that have to do with:
"A man with a gun can defend his freedom or die as a free man. A man without a gun can choose to live as a slave or die as a slave."
Sorry, that's just wrong.
A man name Gandhi once proved it.
So one generation of hindi slaves were let go when Brits decided that owning them outright was not profitable anymore in the industrial/economic age.
Even if you foolishly attribute their liberation to their inaction, what about ten generations of indians that died in their beds as slaves? What did their inacion won them? Life as slaves, that is what.
Of course, in liberal talk one generation is greater then twenty, especially if that one produced Gandhi who can be fasionably quoted.
When americans decided they do not want to willingly be subjects of British crown, they automatically became slaves. Since they did not want to be slaves, they won their freedom in less then one generation. Stupid americans - they did not read Gandhi! Didn't they know that in two hundred years Brits would have probably let their great-great-grand-children go after a few massacres?
Oh, wait. I am using numbers talking to a liberal. How stupid of me. Just in case you are ready to convert - ten is ten times more then one and is ten times more significant as a proof.
If you do not understand the importance of those numbers, I am not surprised that Bush seemed stupid to you with his bumbling schientific opposition to Gore's pipe dreams.
miko
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Miko,
5. Few people are willing to put thier lives on the line to serve society. Most are only interested in making bigger bucks and telling others how to live.
Mav
Clear, concise and to the point, Mav. But I have to correct you on your last statement.
Nobody should serve the society (other then paid officials). The society should be arranged in such way that people pursuing their private goals benefitted society.
That is how our capitalist society is mostly arranged in USA.
Everybody for himself, the better off you are, the more taxes the society gets to right occasional wrongs and protect our borders, the more jobs are created, the further the thechnical progress advances. Everything else is taken care by the charity.
Nothing wrong with making big bucks - only doing that and claming it wrong (for the others) and telling others how to live.
miko
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Miko, now imagine that you are a Caucasian in Moscow, like the one Azerbaijanian surgeon who lives in an apartment next to mine.
Yes, I would feel lousy. I would expect a pogrom any day. I would look for a way to own a weapon to protect myself in that case.
But I live in Brooklyn, New York. My police is not corrupted! My mayor R. Juliani does not inflate national hatred among his constituents.
miko
-
Miko,
The point I was making in that last statement was about the selfishness of many of the citizens of this country. It is based on seeing them obsessed with ME ME ME only instead of looking and seeing what they can do to make it a better place. Call me altruistic if you want but I agree with Robert Heinlien in that those who wish to enjoy the fruits of liberty must be prepared to defend them. He was FAR more articulate about it than I. I used the term society as it is different than the term government.
Jimmy Doolittle said it better than I. He said, "I believe we are here to make the world a better place." I used quotes but may have misquoted the exact words, not the meaning.
In a way, I think some of the statements in Starhip Troopers (*the book, not the movie) were pretty damn good. Veterans often have a much different view of things than do those who never risked anything to live in the society they enjoy.
Making big bucks is not wrong, unless you do nothing but selfish acts with them. If you are unwilling to give back, or serve the society that gave you the optioon of making those big bucks, that is bad. IMHO.
Did this make it clearer Miko?
Mav
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Many racists do not consider themselves as such. I believe you fall into that category.
Trying to forecast who the wrong people are based on race or social standing is even more of a problem.
Sorry you feel that way.
I saw many things that made other people rasists and I am proud that my background, experience and intelligence prevented me from becoming one (or any kind of -ist, -un, or -at). I value my open-mindedness and technical approach. I was proven wrong amy times by people who used math and logic and I changed my point of view.
But despite all that, I may certainly be a subconcious racist for all I know. I hope I am not...
I would never call for any measure for any race. I think that undeprivileged, among whom many are blacks, benefitted more from aborthion then whites. But I would never try to fight for abortion for blacks if I did not think it appropriate for whites.
I think that underprivileged blacks would benefit most from the ban on guns. But I do not think any law-abiding citizen should lose that right.
I do think that if you combine Brooklyn with it's considerable black population and Washington, D.C., the resulting gun-related crime statistics will be enourmously worse then for Brooklyn alone. You think such statistical separation is wrong? Many people visit Paris much more often then they do Washington. Why would you bundle them togeter? They differ more. After all, military hospitals do not practice in Paris or Brooklyn.
I did not say that we should forecast who is more likely to be a criminal based on race or social standing.
I said that our police knows what they are doing and I do not know their methods. I trust them. If you don't - find out what reasoning and policies they use and see if any of that is illegal. Then punish the criminals working in the police. But do not automatically call police criminals because the blacks comprise more then %12 of all arrested.
Recent case - police see a car with several blacks inside. As they drive by, the occupants of a car notice the police and run away. The policemen follow and catch a couple. They search a car and find a bag of drugs in the car. They make arrest.
Instead of thanking them and saying "jail the criminals" the community leaders sue the police. They prove that the fact that people suddenly notice the police and start running away is not an indication of their possible criminal intent. So the subsequent search was illegal and the evidence is thrown out of court. Does that help community?
Nobody in out society can suffer from the lawfull actions of police. If the actions are unlawfull they are not police but criminals. Otherwise it would mean that we have biased laws and that is not true.
East Germany once made abortions legal because they did not want to have a law that made over 50,000 citisen criminals each year.
Drugs are part of our life. You want few blacks to become criminals? Make drugs legal and stop arresting them for posession. Then they will not go to prison to be educated and influenced by real criminals. How many whites were killed in drugs turf wars recently? The victims and criminals are mostly blacks. Neither have to be if drugs become legal and regulated.
You want more blacks in the police? Do not lower the exam standards untill they pass in the same proportion as the general population. This way many white trash net in. Better allocate money to give them twice or three time the police academy time to compensate for their abysmal public schools.
You prefer to believe that blacks are not disproportionately represented among the underprivileged? It is a common knowlege and policy. Why do we have Affirmative Action then? I just thinh that their problems can be helped more efficiently.
Let me consider your statement again:
Trying to forecast who the wrong people are based on race or social standing is even more of a problem.
If rather then walk/drive through certain (by no means all) black neighbourhoods I prefer to go around because I expect to meet the wrong people based on race or social standing, and I would never even consider that faced with chinese, indian, hasidic neighbourhood - does that make me a racist? Or a realist?
What does it tell about my willingness to hire a black or be a friend with one? I would say nothing, but I may be wrong.
I lived for 25 years in a country without races. I heard a lot about oppressed blacks elsewhere. I did saw only a few blacks first hand - buy they were children of african nobility / party elite studying in my city colleges. Educated, hardworking, proud, always well-behaved. I could not become a racist then.
I recaived a lot of sovied international propaganda.
I also was on the receiving end of discrimination - national, if not racial. So I was not of a good opinion of racists or nationalists then.
So If I became a racist, that could happen after I arrived here to New York. I never had to compete with blacks for a place in the college or in the workplace, like Irish in the beginning of the century. There are very few of them in programming and related fields.
So if I became a racist, that would mean some kind of natural unavoidable process associated with life in US? I hope it is not so with all my heart.
I hope it is my wording that misleads you. I will examine my views carefully just in case. What about the facts and statistics (notice - I carefully make separation there). Is there no merit to them?
Apparrently there are some taboos in our hippocritical society. Just mentioning some topics even from a purely mathematical standpoint is likely to bring the labels "brainwashed" of "racist" on a person.
P.S. I was alwasys brainwashed against chinese - Chine being the USSR closest enemy then. Worst then capitalists - traitors. Many derisive jokes all my life. Many chinese here competing with me right where I live, work and study.
There is overpopuation in China and they have abortions there. What if I find the numbers and publish them? What if I mentin that there are chinese crime families and people-smuggling opperations? Does that make me anti-chinese racist? My many chinese friends would not agree.
Dejavu - tell me what is wrong with a message. Leave the messenger alone. Even if I were a racist and my post were racist, would n't it make more sence to argue or make conclusions from the content then label me? We know there are plenty of racists in this country. What would improve if you label another person as such?
miko
-
Dejavu - tell me what is wrong with a message.
It smacks of racism and social classification.
Leave the messenger alone.
You aren't the messenger.. you are the publisher. You wrote it.. you didn't simply belay it. There is a difference.
Even if I were a racist and my post were racist, would n't it make more sence to argue or make conclusions from the content then label me?
Unfortunately no. I've read through your posts previously.. there doesn't seem to be a point. You don't seem to want to discuss. You present and you defend. That is it.
We know there are plenty of racists in this country. What would improve if you label another person as such?
Nope.. just feel the need to clarify it. When social elitism and racism are used to justify beliefs... I will point it out every time. Its been done all too often in the past.. and its started inocently enough every time.
AKDejaVu
-
Mav,
I have an urge to re-word some of your points but I do not want to seem like I argue with you - our views are close enough.
Altruism is there already - any successfull happy person with healthy mind will perform altruistic acts and help less fortunate. Most people do that even if there are shortages and hunger, as long as they perceive the society as fair one.
People lived for millenia before the social security and those were not dark ages - people always helped each other.
But don't you hate self proclaimed "altruists" who go into politics because they cannot do anything else and do "altruism" on other people backs. They just need a chance for a few social experiments to improve our lives. And better not bother them with historicl examples and math.
You (not you personally, Mav, the politician) can talk altruism if you are a Ross Perot or Bill Gates who achieved something/everything for yourself and now willing to use your proven problem-solving capabilities to help public. (Of course public would hate to see a proven successfull achiever as a president, especially the one with bad haircut or big ears...)
Until then, admit that the tax cut will benefit the rich more then the poor because the rich pay more. But since the rich could buy anything they want already, the money that they save on taxes will get back into the economy under their control, not some inept bureaucrat's. Then economy would improve and the society would benefit including the poor. The tax revenue will be greater even with the lower tax rate. The interest rates will be lower due to onflow of capital - opening business easier and buying a hiuse more affordable. That is Bush's position - no altruism whatsoever.
Or we can force the rich to be altruistic through high taxes. They may do that or they may move their capital to another country and we would not see any of their money. The middle class that cannot have off-shore accounts would have to pick up the tab.
Heinlen - yes. He probably turned in his grave when "Starship Troopers" was made a movie.
I've read quite a few of his works and frankly, while his social views permeating his fiction make it much more attractive to me, he does not do much for me as a S.F. writer. Probably if I read him before L.M. Bujold, David Weber and Drake...
His documentaries, social studies and articles on the society are different matter altogether - great reading.
Any of his works you would specifically recommend?
miko
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
quote:
------------------
Even if I were a racist and my post were racist, would n't it make more sence to argue or make conclusions from the content then label me?
------------------
Unfortunately no. I've read through your posts previously.. there doesn't seem to be a point. You don't seem to want to discuss. You present and you defend. That is it.
I ment if is there something in the numbers that does not add up or can be interpreted differently? If so, what and how?
Do you know any studies that contradict those published in Economist?
Where is discussion here? I say a I am not a racist and you say I am.
You say the numbers should not be separated and I explain why I think the general statistics does not reflect the state in my neighbourhood or in Washington D.C.
How come that mean I am unwilling to discuss?
Even with igloo we have a more or less meaningfull discussion here - after his empty first post. He gave an example and I gave a counter-example.
What did you contribute to the discussion?
Did not I not reply to every one of your posts with lengthy posts of my own? Pick one of my statements and try to prove it wrong. Come up with other data proving your point.
Yes, I present my data and defend my point. Isn't that my part of discussion? How come I am not discussing? Should I argue against my point ov view instead of defending it? I always thought any discussion included a proponent and an opponent. I am the proponent by definition.
You did not see the points in my posts? They are highlighted and marked specifically.
here it is again:
If we consider gun-related and general murder rates among the white americans (not for racial, but for territorial reasons), they will not be higher then european countries or Israel (where most people are armed).
I say that Anti-guy cativists lie with their statistics and show how. I say that statistics for most cities (and that is where we live) is much better then that.
Is that not a point?
Another one from abortion thread:
Our politicians are lying when they claim credit for the drop in crime. Most of the drop can be explained due to the abortion being legalised in 1973. See the numbers there - I took them from Economist magazine and just superimposed teh graphs and did a simple math.
Which of the numbers are wrong? Which of them should not have been added? What other factors are not mentioned that could have contributed?
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 10-10-2000).]
-
This is a very interesting thread. I think miko has made some great posts.
DJV I dinnae get the impression that miko was trying to be racist. To the best of my knowledge everything he's said is pretty much on the money. And whether we like to admit it or not, a class system exists in the US, and there are people who would refer to you and I (and everyone here) as lower class =\
-
Miko2d <S>
I'm not sure how long you have lived in the U.S. culture, but you have hit on a very, very painful, infected wound in our country that just won't heal... and it is tragic.
I think I know what you are talking about. The problem is, the kind of analysis you have done has always been embraced by racists, who believe that it supports their agendas, while it's been very difficult for the average person to accept.
To illustrate, some years ago a couple of scientists set out to do a scientific study of comparative intelligence - between the races. I believe that the study was referred to as the Bell Curve study, or some such. The results, if I recall correctly, showed that tested blacks had generally lower intelligence than other races tested. This study caused quite a furor, and there were allegations of racism. I'm not even sure if conclusions were ever drawn from the data. The topic is really almost too inflammatory to discuss. And that is my point. You hit a nerve.
I believe that most people are natural born racists, including countless numbers of people who don't consider themselves to be racist, but are. I include all human beings in this statement, because I believe that racism has to do with how humans think and learn. It takes a really enlightened individual to try to rise above this natural tendancy to paint individuals with a broad brush in our social lives.
Like Pavlovian dogs salivating, like successive approximation training that has pidgeons doing 360's, and like the inadvertant learning kids get from whatever micro-culture surrounds them, human beings are racist.
To exacerbate the problem, racism is often usefull, and a very practical way of doing business.
Example: Racial Profiling.
If the educated experience of the police department (your statistics) tell them that a purple race is doing certain crimes in a certain place, they will organize the data in the way that the human brain is so exceptionally good at doing.
The police may not have a written policy to pay special attention to the purple people, but you can bet that every officer out there who is trying to do his/her job, including the black officers, is going to be paying more attention to purple people. And it works.
(Unfortunatly, inevitably, not all purple people attended to in that way are guilty of a crime.)
To me, that is the cost of being a human being on this blue ball we all live on.
I view capital punishment the same way. Will there be mistakes? Inevitably. We should never stop improving ways to keep mistakes from happening, but life is a chance for all of us and we need to act for the larger good.
I don't want to wander any further off topic. I'm not sure how the incidence of violence with guns amoung U.S. whites in general would compare to other places, but I wouldn't be too fast to draw a conclusion.
Violence is a trait of American culture that seems to be ingrained, and I would think that it might be higher than comparable samples elsewhere.
I'm not sure if inner city/black areas have more incidence of violence with guns, but I don't think it would be surprizing if it were true. Those areas have more of every kind of problem.
It's a mess. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
What a joke.
That to have freedom, you must have weapons. That's a bunch of redneck roadkill.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
What a joke.
That to have freedom, you must have weapons. That's a bunch of redneck roadkill.
Your starting to sound like a bigot to me, you have a closed mind......
Udie
-
Miko,
I am a bit in awe of what you have achieved. My paternal great-grandfather was a very successful immigrant. My maternal grandfather faired better than he did in his native land and his sons were very, very successful.
Your story is not all that different from theirs. What this says to me is that the America that offered my "immigrant" family a chance to succeed still exists. It is reassuring after all the negative things one hears. Thanks!
You don't sound racist to me, either.
Here's one for you:
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal." [Peter Brimelow, National Review (2/1/93)] (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Not that DJV is a liberal! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Udie,
Ig isn't a bigot. He just isn't very skilled in debate. Research and preparaton are apparently difficult for him, so he relies solely on his own opinion and asks all to accept that as the ONE TRUE POSITION.
Generally, I think you all will note that I refrain from personal "ad hominem" attacks. Please do not take this as an "ad hominem". It is simply my appraisal of his debating style.
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
What a joke.
That to have freedom, you must have weapons. That's a bunch of redneck roadkill.
To deny others their freedoms only because you fear it, dislike it is a sign of a tyrant. To punish the many for the sins / trangressions of the few is injustice. To debase others for not thinking like you is bigotry.
Mav
Mav
-
Sorry Toad I cannot accept that now, I've closed my mind (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) You can try again tomarow at 8 am when we open back up for business (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Udie
-
<Takes a look at some stats>
<Decides to remove segments that make them bad>
<Re-introduces stats and make new claims>
Doesn't work like that in the real world.
But, you do illustrate one thing; income inequality in the US is a major problem. Well, some don't care, but income inequality and crime rate are closely linked.
Here, everyone is taxed so heavily it is impossible to get rich, so low income inequality (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
And, miko, I must say that if you believe the US internally is more different overall than European countries; I must only point you to our history of wars to show that there are some very major issues. We're better at cooperation now, but the difference between the mentality of a Scandinavian and someone from Greece or Italy are quite large - and that's talking behavior in society only.
The US is diverse, for sure - after all it's built on immigrants and slaves.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
-
Miko, any armed Caucasian will be probably dead in a few seconds after militia-man will discover the gun.
Sometimes gun is much more dangerous for it's owner.
And he doesn't expect "pogrom" (please notice that you use this word as English, it's very rare in modern Russian) - he is a respected professional, just like you, but he suffers from paranoid attitude to Caucasians in the streets.
BTW, my local militia officer ("uchastkoviy") is a Chechen (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Strongly disagreeing about something is not being a bigot.
Actually, I am a good debater when it comes to things that are really worth debating over. Here, everyone has their own hard set opinions and it really does not matter what information you bring forth, their opinions still remain. They have that right.
Believe me, I am far from closed minded.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Well, another great thread !!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
WTG mates, <S!>
I have to add somethink to Santa's post.
Is not necessary to point at the differences between Scandinavian and Italians (or Spain), and for sure there is a huge difference (just think about different languages).
You can just look at differences in behaviours between different class in a city like mine (Naples), comparable to what miko point at (without different race, only education).
I assure you, in a distance of tenth of meters you can observe two different populations and cultures (i have to admit, here is particularly prononced, it's amazing, indeed), call me if you come here and i will show you places where even the army is scared to enter.
Not talking about police behaviour, here they are corrupted, violent and biased (not all of them, but a BIG percentage).
So the problem you pointed maybe is not related with gun owning, or drug free (and i will agree with the latter), but the big problem in both country maybe is deeper...
My idea??
Education, culture, knowledge call it as you want, but this is the key to be really a men, not a gun or the money.
Fix the education system, and you will have a real, huge improvement of the entire society.
But of coure nor the politicians, nor the big companyes want this, people in an ignorant state is easier to control or to use.
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
What a joke.
That's a bunch of redneck roadkill.
Well sorry, but to me it looks like you ideals don't hold enough water and you have to resort to a statement like above to try and prove your point. In doing so you take away from the debate and belittle your own words, at least to me.
I have a question for you igloo, being that your from Canada, have you ever even seen a real red neck? Ever been to ones house to eat dinner with his family? You know how his neck got red? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Udie
-
Originally posted by Naso:
Well, another great thread !!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
WTG mates, <S!>
I have to add somethink to Santa's post.
Is not necessary to point at the differences between Scandinavian and Italians (or Spain), and for sure there is a huge difference (just think about different languages).
You can just look at differences in behaviours between different class in a city like mine (Naples), comparable to what miko point at (without different race, only education).
I assure you, in a distance of tenth of meters you can observe two different populations and cultures (i have to admit, here is particularly prononced, it's amazing, indeed), call me if you come here and i will show you places where even the army is scared to enter.
Not talking about police behaviour, here they are corrupted, violent and biased (not all of them, but a BIG percentage).
So the problem you pointed maybe is not related with gun owning, or drug free (and i will agree with the latter), but the big problem in both country maybe is deeper...
My idea??
Education, culture, knowledge call it as you want, but this is the key to be really a men, not a gun or the money.
Fix the education system, and you will have a real, huge improvement of the entire society.
But of coure nor the politicians, nor the big companyes want this, people in an ignorant state is easier to control or to use.
DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!
We have a winner!!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) WTG Naso! I think you nailed it right on the head. If a man is educated, realy educated, he knows how to think. If he know's how to think he know's how to make sound judgments. Most of all he is more likely to know when somebody is trying to fool him. The Democrat party here in the USA has strived on this for decades now and it's how they keep their power. I guess people are to stupid to see that the problems that the dem's say they will fix this time around keep getting worse. When they should know that every action they take will either help them get out of problems or cause more problems, not the government. The big buisinesses I think want people to make money so that they will spend that money, the more the better at least the business men I know.
Udie
-
Education is not always the key. Some of the most educated people in the world were (and are) racist and bigoted. Equality within a resource-rich environment is the only way we will ever have a truly perfect society.
Probably won't happen in my lifetime ( (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)), but I can only hope.
Miko - what you write doesn't sound racist. America (like any other country) can't claim to have a 'classless' society. However, I believe that all people are born equal - the society that raises them implants them with 'acceptable' ideas, and one of those is ethnic identity. I reckon if you took a small black boy and a small white boy and set them down with some toys, they will play together happily forever. Only when you implant into them, that they are different besides colour that racism starts to develop.
BTW - big business only serves profit in the end. It does not really give a f**k about the society in which it operates. That's why it is OK for Nike to have not a single factory in the US producing footwear - it is farmed out to the far east where labour is dirt cheap, despite the fact there is plenty of people who are available to fill the vacancies.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
How very glib. Or conversely,
"The modern definition of a 'liberal' is someone who is winning an argument with a racist."
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
Here, everyone has their own hard set opinions and it really does not matter what information you bring forth...
Jeez, Ig! Don't give it up without even trying!
Just one time give us an argument where you actually DO bring forth some verifiable information rather than just your august opinion!
Then see how it goes.
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
BTW - big business only serves profit in the end. It does not really give a f**k about the society in which it operates. That's why it is OK for Nike to have not a single factory in the US producing footwear - it is farmed out to the far east where labour is dirt cheap, despite the fact there is plenty of people who are available to fill the vacancies.
Those dang capitalists! Always trying to make a profit so they can stay in business! I HATE that! Why don't they just give product away until they fold? Society would enjoy the freebies for a while!
Why, pray tell, should they not make shoes overseas where wages are less? Is the US suffering due to the lack of Nike factories? Unemployment is pretty low right now.
If wages were more, wouldn't the shoes cost more? Would that be a good thing?
-
Capitalism is capitalism, and I think everything big business does is designed to benefit nobody but the shareholders (no matter who or what they screw in the process - smaller businessmen, the environment, developing cultures). As Michael Moore, would say, that is "...the awful truth."
Ethical Big Business? Its one of the biggest oxymorons going.
As for Nike (and dozens of other big businesses), its the labour they use that I object to - often child labour, working them ridiculous hours for a few cents (if they are lucky). Its almost as exploitative as the slave trade.
If wages were more, wouldn't the shoes cost more? Would that be a good thing?
So you reckon Nike passes on the savings from cheap labour to the consumer? Come on, Toad, tell me you're not that naive.
-
Dowding,
Please, this is NOT a personal atack but an inquiry based on your last post.
I am curuous. If business (big or otherwise)is so bad, I am to assume you work soley in the public sector? You work only in a government enterprise?
If business is bad, who supplied the computer you use, the clothes you wear, the food you eat and the home you live in? Did the Government do all that for you? Did some business (or plural) provide all those things?
If you work in the private sector, and ethical big business is an oxymoron, does that make you a hypocrite since your efforts support the business? Are you an oxymoron as an ethical person in suport of an unethical enterprise?
Is there such a thing as an "ethical government" and is only government ethical? How do you tell if government IS ethical or not? (Same for business)
Mav < gets on flame suit, LOTS of gel and digs a bunker! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) <GDR>
Mav
-
Firstly - I'm applying for Officer training in the RAF, among other things (just finished uni). I am not on income support, but work in a factory in the mean time.
I have nothing against business, I live in a capitalist country. I 'consume' like any good Westerner and I do not believe myself to be perfect or above criticism.
I have no illusions when it comes to big business - I just feel people ought to see it as it is; ethics in business seems to me to be an exercise in public relations.
I feel it is my right, responsibility and duty to criticize the actions of unelected (and elected) organisations, and their actions. If I don't agree with an action they do, I will say so.
Ethics is a deeply subjective thing - I don't believe a truly ethical government can exist, considering self-interest is a cornerstone of its foundations. I judge by my values and what I see as important (which I understand other people might not share).
I like inclusive, global, trans-national ideas. I am not absolutely atheistic, but organised religion has no place in my life.
The US is not ready to take over the world, either economically or politically. There is much 'evil' in America, like any other country or system.
Overall, I find it difficult to accept that things as they stand are 'as good as it gets'. Ideas must be challenged and changed for progress to be made.
Mav - I don't mind being asked to explain what I mean, and I also understand that you might disagree. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I wouldn't bother posting here if everyone shared my opinions - it would be very dull.
-
Dowding: As for Nike (and dozens of other big businesses), its the labour they use that I object to - often child labour, working them ridiculous hours for a few cents (if they are lucky). Its almost as exploitative as the slave trade.
I don’t like it either.
Do you think those countries/laborers would be better off without the Nike factory?
Would those workers take the job if it didn’t seem like a better option to them than NOT working for those wages?
It has always been thus in the history of the world. These factories and oppressive wages are going to bring more factories and create the need for more laborers....and with competition for workers, wages will rise along with the standard of living. Admittedly, it is a long, drawn out process, one I wish we could instantly transform. But in the real world it doesn’t work like that.
Mexico is just now getting over the hump. Remember when Mexico was the “cheap, oppressed labor?” They went through that period. They are still not up to “world class wages”. There is no doubt, however, that the standard of living in Mexico has improved.
So it will be in those areas. You walk before you can run. Factories must be built for jobs to be created, for the standard of living to rise.
So you reckon Nike passes on the savings from cheap labour to the consumer? Come on, Toad, tell me you're not that naive.
No, I believe that Nike sets a profit target. This profit target has to be high enough to satisfy the shareholders or the company may not remain in business very long. Capitalism, like it or not.
So, if that target is not met, one of two things happens.
1. They will raise Prices if the market will support that.
Otherwise,
2. Production will be curtailed (factories close and people, even poorly paid ones, are put out of work) until demand becomes more balanced with supply and prices rise to an “acceptable“ level..
Are you suggesting that moving the factories back to the US and paying higher wages to US workers would somehow be a better world situation?
Prices on Nikes would undoubtedly rise. Some US workers, who in any event are in a better economic situation/lifestyle than the Nike workers in 3rd world countries, would enjoy an even better economic situation/lifestyle.
How would that help the 3rd world workers?
You may not like the Capitalist process, but please point out a successful alternative.
Communism is an abject failure in raising a country’s standard of living to “1st World” standards.
True Socialism? I’m not aware of any truly successful “pure socialist” companies or nations. Are you?
Capitalism exists and thrives because it works better than anything else does. Certainly not because it is perfect.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-13-2000).]
-
Miko,
Two of Heinliens books I keep in my house for re-reading are: Stranger in a Strange Land and Time Enough For Love. Actually I am one of Robert's greatest fans. I still have just about everything I have found that he wrote. There are a couple that I like but don't feel made much of a statement and they are Job A Comedy of Justice and The number of the Beast.
Mav
-
Originally posted by Toad:
I don’t like it either.
Do you think those countries/laborers would be better off without the Nike factory?
Wasn't it your good self, who was saying 'Where is the outrage?' while criticising people for a 'tsh, tsk' attitude? Seems you've changed your tune, Toad. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Saying that the labourers will be somehow better off is no reason to actively exploit poorer countries/people. Take Saipan for instance. This is under US control, I believe, and this leads to inhabitants of China (for example) to want to move there to pursue the 'American Dream'. At one factory for GAP, people were recruited from the Chinese mainland, with the proviso that they pay about $4000. Obviously, they can't afford this so the factory has a convenient contract which goes as follows:
1) Agree to work until the debt has been paid back (plus interest), at whatever hours the factory demands
2) Agree to never fall in love or marry (this is true believe it or not)
3) Agree not to get pregnant
4) Work 7 days a week, with compulsory overtime
This is also applied to children as young as 10.
I can't see how you can justify the exploitation of children by quoting economic theory. Is there anything you can't put a value on?
Are you suggesting that moving the factories back to the US and paying higher wages to US workers would somehow be a better world situation?
That is not the point - the point is whether exploiting child labour is justified.
Communism is an abject failure in raising a country’s standard of living to “1st World” standards.
Take a look at Russia under Stalin, and compare the industry before 1917, and with that to be found in 1953. Communism (albeit Stalin's bloody version) created an industiral super-power from an essentially agrarian society in a few decades. This would have been very difficult to achieve without Stalin and communism.
There is something to be said for the view that communism didn't fail, that it was prevented from succeeding. This is certainly the case in Cuba.
No system is perfect, but that doesn't excuse turning a blind eye to its failings.
-
Dowding
Saipan is not a commonwealth of the US and as such is no more under US control than is Britain.
As to the leap into the industrial age in Russia. Ask the millions who died under Stalin if they think it was worth it. Is that the type of government you wish to tout as a world leader?????? Their "experiment" lasted less than 80 years and has proven to be a failure. Why should they be looked upon as a success story here?
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Maverick,
My point wasn't that Stalin was a humanitarian or just or fair or even human. Toad said that communism was an abject failure in raising a country's standard of living to the 1st world. This is simply not true if you look at the facts; communism dragged Russia into 20th century and built a country to rival the USA.
I was taking the same cold, monetary based stance as Toad does when it comes to child labour/slavery. Toad implies the suffering of the individual is irrelevant in the face of economic progress.
A view Stalin would be proud of, comrade.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-16-2000).]
-
Dowding,
That last post was both uncalled for and untrue. It was not in your usual style to berate the person for a comment I feel you have obviously misconstrued. In my opinion your comparison to Toad and Stalin needs to be retracted and an apology issued. Do you really venerate Stalin so much???
I agree with Toad. Communism is a failed political experiment that resulted in the deaths of untold thousands of people. How many people must die before you think "bringing the country into a 1st world status" is too high a price to pay.
Toads whole point was that if nike (or whatever company) did not employ those kids or adults, they would likely be in an even worse financial position.
You seem to think that business is supposed to be "ethical" and not employ those folks. Just how do you expect them to get along without a job at all?
I am not in favor of child labor. I am certainly not in favor of slavery either. I believe it is the country that those people live in who is responsible for seeing to the welfare of it's own people. If I were hungry and without any money and an employer offered me a job that would allow me to live I would take it. So would you. If the wages were not up to "western" standards but I could meet all of the essentials in that country then it is a living wage. That to me is certainly better than no wage at all.
From where I sit Russia (USSR) had a strong military. That does not constitute a first rate country however.
Finally, please do not use the term "comrade" when referring to me or my beliefs. I neither profess nor endorse Communism. If you wish to, that is your choice. Do not include me in it.
Mav
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-17-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
Maverick - parts of my last post was very much tongue in cheek. I am in no way a communist or supporter of Stalin - I don't in any way 'admire' him or his actions. He was a monster second to none, not even Hitler.
You completely miss my point concerning 'the price of progress'. I find it deeply abhorrant that people should suffer for any kind of progress, economic or industrial. That was the point of my post.
I was not in any way trying to equate Toad to Stalin. That would be ridiculous and insulting - two things I strive not to be (obviously failed here).
My point was that Stalin very much believed the suffering of the individual is completely irrelevant to the economic and industrial progress he was creating (this had to be true considering the number who starved to death, were shot etc, under his regime). I was drawing parallels between this attitude, and Toad's justification that child or underpaid labour somehow benefits the whole country - i.e. the suffering of the individual worker is somehow mitigated by the benefit brought to the economy of the country as a whole.
As for 'Comrade' this is a word that has been around for centuries (many more than communism). It was really aimed at Toad in a jokey kind of way. I wasn't accusing anyone of being a communist.
As for third world labour - they shouldn't employ kids and I can't see how anyone can justify them doing it. They shouldn't have to sign contracts like the one I gave above. It would be too much to ask the companies to pay the people they employ just a little more - spread the wealth in a socialistic kind of way.
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-17-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Toad said that communism was an abject failure in raising a country's standard of living to the 1st world. This is simply not true if you look at the facts; communism dragged Russia into 20th century and built a country to rival the USA.
That's a real hoot, Dowding!
"Built a country to rival the USA?"
YGBSM! They even imported American Standard Toilets when they redid the Bolshoi during the "Cold War"!
They built a military...focused more on brute force and numbers...that rivaled ours, I'll give them that. Couldn't maintain it, but they did build it.
But a country/society that rivaled the US?
They couldn't even FEED themselves most years.
They bought wheat (amongst other foodstocks) around the world just about every year I can remember...and I live in an area where the wheat came from so we watched it.
No, sorry...you're way off on this one! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) 2nd World? Yah, I'd go with that.
Dowding: You completely miss my point concerning 'the price of progress'. I find it deeply abhorrant that people should suffer for any kind of progress, economic or industrial. That was the point of my post.
I agree Dowding, it seems unfair, doesn't it?
In fact, I wonder WHY people ANYWHERE even apply for jobs like those, don't you?
I guess you're saying they would be better off NOT working for NIKE, right?
Surely they can see that as well as you? Tell me, why do they TAKE THOSE JOBS?
You know, my maternal granfather immigrated and took a job like that here. My paternal great grandfather immigarted and took a job like that here. One working the railroads, the other in coal mines.
Tell me Dowding, why did they take those jobs?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I said communism built a country to rival the USA. If you disagree with this, then what do you think the Cold War was about?
I'm a bit confused as to your attitude here, Toad:
Dowding: You completely miss my point concerning 'the price of progress'. I find it deeply abhorrant that people should suffer for any kind of progress, economic or industrial. That was the point of my post.
I agree Dowding, it seems unfair, doesn't it?
It sounds like you believe child-labour 'seems' to be unfair, but in actual fact it is justified. Perhaps you could clarify this matter for me.
The point about your relatives is spurious: no large multinational enterprise was benefitting from working conditions which would be unacceptable in its country of origin. Nor were they having their human rights violated by a contract of the type I described above (which again, would not be allowed in the multi-national's country of origin).
Or perhaps your relatives did sign contracts that forbid them marrying and having children - but that can't be right, since neither you or your wife would be here today! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
The role of a multi-national suppying factory can also have devastating effects on the local community. People flock to the factory's environs in the hope of work, leaving behind the structured, ordered life of their native villages. The individuals working at the factory are paid very little, really - they can't afford to send their kids to school, for instance. Disease and crime infests the shanty towns created around the factories. The people are unable to leave the shanty, because they simply have no money to do so, and continue working at the factory.
And this continues to increase the profit margins of the multi-national.
-
Dowding, nice LIberal Dodge...again.
So now you didn't imply that Russia was a "1st World" country?
"Dowding: Toad said that communism was an abject failure in raising a country's standard of living to the 1st world. This is simply not true if you look at the facts."
Under Communism they NEVER were up to a "1st World standard of living. NEVER. Communism WAS an abject failure in raising their country to a 1st world standard of living. They couldn't even FEED themselves. They still aren't 1st tier overall, IMHO.
Cold War rivals? Militarily yes, simply because they had Nukes and a HUGE ground army.
"1st World standard of living rivals?" Pass the bong, duuuuuuuuude!
No, the point about my relatives was NOT spurious. Both of them took incredibly bad jobs, under incredibly bad working conditions and under incredibly bad pay.
The question, which once again you have "Liberal Dodged", is WHY do people TAKE jobs like that Dowding?
You know the answer, too. You just can't bring yourself to admit it. Because then the people that actually TAKE those jobs would not be agreeing with YOU.
I'll agree that some multi's in some countries are really disgusting. It does happen and it IS a problem.
However, the reason it is even POSSIBLE for the "bad multi's" to pull this off is obvious.
Once again, it's the history of the world. It's been written over and over again. No one has found a way to successfully bypass this step of a developing nation yet, as far as I know.
Now, am I evil because I read history and see it repeating itself?
Doesn't mean that I don't wish for a "better day" just as much as you do.
I think I'm just more of a realist.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)