News USA's Moral Obligation to Spread Democracy: Thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    States
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the USA has a moral obligation to spread democratic ideals globally. Participants argue that democracy is the most efficient political system, likening the duty to spread it to the Christian imperative of sharing "the Good News." The concept of a Moral Imperative is introduced, suggesting that failing to act against immoral situations violates moral codes. Some participants emphasize the need to define "democracy" and highlight the distinction between a republic and a democracy, while others question America's own democratic practices. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a complex interplay of moral philosophy, political theory, and practical considerations regarding the role of the USA in promoting democracy.
  • #101
Gonzolo said:
There is the possibility that it is not a mistake.

well its clearly a mistake... the world sees it as a mistake but a good number of US citizens refuse to agree... call me immature but majority wins imo... it is evident that its a mistake that has made the world even more unsafe..

But if you want to say that for the sake of debating then sure..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
I don't think it is a mistake. I think whoever's responsible (Exxon comes to mind) had a reason, what is that reason?
When America gains control of Iraqi oil they will gain huge influence on the global price of oil.

Now for a Quote
"I've visited a lot of countries, I've lived in many places around the world, and believe me there arn't many places with as many lonely, alienated, paranoid, narcissistic, frightened and trapped people as the US. So why are US citizens so proud of their country? Because they deny being its victim."
-Adbuster Magazine
 
  • #103
Smurf said:
I don't think it is a mistake. I think whoever's responsible (Exxon comes to mind) had a reason, what is that reason?
When America gains control of Iraqi oil they will gain huge influence on the global price of oil.

Although the political aim to gain more influence in the ME is clearly economy-driven (especially when the top politicians all come out of the oil business), I still have the impression that if that was the main aim, then it failed miserably. It would have been the case if the Iraqis had welcomed their "liberators", but that didn't happen and I don't see it happen in the years to come. I even think that the US lost a lot of influence in the ME.
Do you think that, say, 5 years from now a) the US military will be gone from Iraq and b) that whatever government that will be there will be US-minded ? I think they blew it in the ME.

But I have the naive impression that all these more subtle reasons are secondary to the Iraqi invasion. I simply have the impression that there are a few people in the Bush administration who simply had some personal feelings against Saddam and that now that they are in power, didn't want to miss the occasion of beating him up. Shear testosterone activity.
All what is said after that is only there to rationalise that impulsive behaviour.
 
  • #104
Of cource vanesch, Saddam's very existence threatened America's hold on other weaker nations, now that his attempt to be independant from the US (weather he did it intentionally or if it was an accident, i can't say) has been crushed the US may get more obediance from its current lackies.

But I wouldn't be too sure that America will not gain main access to iraq's oil reserves, they could do a number of things from accually setting up a strong government (unlikely) to supporting a warlord to take over iraq like they supported saddam, this time keep him on a shorter leash.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
Ludwig said:
It's my impression that a truly representative system, such as Parliamentarism, would not fit well with the American mind. I may be speaking out of ignorance, but Americans seem very enamored of heroes and superheroes. They like to see one man, one individual, fight a personal battle for the common good. It's part of their culture, from the early days of the pilgrims who had to face a hostile environment without much help, and prospered doing it.

Which is probably the reason most foreigners don't understand how an uneducated and ignorant man like Bush can be elected President. Most foreigners can't relate to his facial expressions and verbal utterances of defiance against what he perceives as evil. Many Americans, it seems to me, see a lot of heroism in it.

(this is in no way a criticism of anything, just a passive observation)
That's a very good point indeed. I'd never thought of it. Bush appears to be an inexplicable choice of President to us non-Americans, but your explanation makes some sense of it. (God help us all, this means it'll be Arnie next). I wonder if US voters realize what a dreadful message it sends to rest of the world that after Bush's stupifyingly ignorant reaction to 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq he gets re-elected. We're talking about impeaching Blair over here, not of re-electing him. Still, we all seem to be in the same boat, ending up with inadequate leaders. Perhaps our idea of democracy needs updating now that industry has taken over politics.
 
  • #106
jai6638 said:
well its clearly a mistake... the world sees it as a mistake but a good number of US citizens refuse to agree... call me immature but majority wins imo... it is evident that its a mistake that has made the world even more unsafe..

But if you want to say that for the sake of debating then sure..


Well, I would say it depends on how well the rest of the world can organize itself in polarizing the US. For as long as the US remains stronger than any other entity or coalition, I wouldn't call it a mistake. A bit like a politician with 35% of the votes, 65% support someone else, but if it's all divided in different parties, the end result is that the 35% is the majority.
 
  • #107
Canute said:
Perhaps our idea of democracy needs updating now that industry has taken over politics.

An idea: how about "swap-democracy" ?

During the first round, the people of a nation elect a friendly other nation as their "great elector nation". Nations can apply or not. The winner cannot apply next time. The winning nation then organises an election amongst ITS population, in order to elect a candidate from the original country as its president.

So, say, there are swap elections in the US. First round: Canada, Spain and France apply as 'friendly nations'. Spain wins (closely followed by Canada).
Second round: the Americans propose their candidates (say, Bush, Kerry, ...).
The people of Spain elect the president of the US.

This system retains most of the advantages of a democracy (in that you can kick out a merciless, bad leader), and avoids much more all elective corruption and influence from pressure groups. You just get a candidate a friendly nation thinks is good for you.


:-p
 
  • #108
vanesch said:
An idea: how about "swap-democracy" ?

During the first round, the people of a nation elect a friendly other nation as their "great elector nation". Nations can apply or not. The winner cannot apply next time. The winning nation then organises an election amongst ITS population, in order to elect a candidate from the original country as its president.

So, say, there are swap elections in the US. First round: Canada, Spain and France apply as 'friendly nations'. Spain wins (closely followed by Canada).
Second round: the Americans propose their candidates (say, Bush, Kerry, ...).
The people of Spain elect the president of the US.

This system retains most of the advantages of a democracy (in that you can kick out a merciless, bad leader), and avoids much more all elective corruption and influence from pressure groups. You just get a candidate a friendly nation thinks is good for you.


:-p

:smile: I was going to reply until I realized you were joking. :smile:
 
  • #109
kawikdx225 said:
:smile: I was going to reply until I realized you were joking. :smile:

JOKING ?? ME ?? :smile:
 
  • #110
Burnsys said:
Hi. i am from argentina...
Our history was always shaped by America interventionism.. in the 70' an us backed military dictatorship overtrown OUR DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED goverment... 30.000 "Comunist" killed tortured and disapeared by the military. This military dictatorship started a process called neoliberalism.. a set of economic policies comming from america, our external debt duplicated, international banks were given rigths to transfer all the money the wanted outside the country. and international corporations were welcome...

In the 90' with president carlos menem, who was very obedient to USA, the imf, and the bid.. in the 90' acording to the imf we was the example to follow to all south america.. after his period we have this crisis... in year 2000, we have a masive withdrawl of money from the country, most of it, electronicaly transferred to usa by the banks... our economic minister,, Domingo Cavallo (Member of the trilateral comision) decided to froze and confiscate all people savings in the banks... yes. the international banks (Citibank , bbva, HSBC, ETC.) robed all our savings.. simple as that...

Thanks for giving us your first-hand experience of this, Burnsys. Sadly, I bet that many intelligent Americans will read your post and totally discount it, as it doesn't fit in with their preconception of how the US deals with other nations. Its a
'US = Good. Critics of US policy = bad' mentality. Anything that doesn't fit into this world view is distorted, if it registers at all.

One of my favourite films is Easy Rider. I like what they said about being feared by ordinary people not because they were on motorbikes and had long hair, but because their freedom showed up the ordinary folks' 'freedom' (tied to conservative views, corporations etc) as a sham.

Hope things are getting better over there now.
 
  • #111
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
 
  • #112
Are you saying that Dennis Hopper was terribly wasted at the time? I think you're right, and I don't think he was acting :rolleyes:

I didn't think of it before, but the conversation they had was a bit like the Adbuster quote:
Smurf said:
"I've visited a lot of countries, I've lived in many places around the world, and believe me there arn't many places with as many lonely, alienated, paranoid, narcissistic, frightened and trapped people as the US. So why are US citizens so proud of their country? Because they deny being its victim." -Adbuster Magazine

Of course Captain America and Billy the Kid (and Jack Nicholson) were the ultimate victims, but victims of people lashing out because the felt threatened.
 
  • #113
The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.


In order not to confuse the republican constitution with the democratic (as is commonly done), the following should be noted. The forms of a state (civitas) can be divided either according to the persons who possesses the sovereign power or according to the mode of administration exercised over the people by the chief, whoever he may be. The first is properly called the form of sovereignty (forma imperii), and there are only three possible forms of it: autocracy, in which one, aristocracy, in which some associated together, or democracy, in which all those who constitute society, possesses sovereign power. They may be characterized, respectively, as the power of a monarch, of the nobility, or of the people. The second division is that by the form of government (forma regiminis) and is based on the way in which the state makes use of its power; this way is based on the constitution, which is the act of the general will through which the many persons become one nation. In this respect government is either republican or despotic. Republicanism is the political principle of the separation of the executive power (the administration) from the legislative; despotism is that of the autonomous execution by the state of laws which it has itself decreed. Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all," who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom.

Immanuel Kant 'Perpetual Peace',

The United States also according to the world fact book is a Constitution-Federal Based Republic, WITH strong democratic traditions.

Im basing my affirmative allot to do with this, however I've researched 5 other books, and found that it is highly difficult to run this, the negative has many chances to argue the United States as a democracy or Republic.

The proper Value and Criterion will make a huge difference and how you define moral, not abusive, and promote, again not abusive, the democratic ideals can be defined as thos who are ignorant and define it as just plain democracy, or you can go deeper within that, PLZ I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE SAPPY CX CASES stfu with this wmd, nuclear wars, if your arguing war use war in general don't say the world is going to blow up if we don't use democracy. and if your negative don't take all the chances to be abusive.

This quote is allot like I am "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead"
 
  • #114
Mr. Justin,
I appreciate your kind intention for the well being of the rest of the world that has not had the good fortune of enjoying American Democracy. But I have to urge you NOT to impose it on any of us because I find that arrogant and insufferable. Have a good life in whatever province you are in and try not to come out bothering us.
 
  • #115
Once again, just because Americans think their Democracy is better than someone else's government, does not mean that they should go over there and make it democratic.
The problem with Media today is it's brainwashing people into thinking their opinions are fact and so they people begin to think like that.
 
  • #116
If USA invade my country and try to bring their supposed "Democracy" i will be one more "terrorist".. COuse i know usa GOV don't wan't democracy they want puppets goverments so their friendly corporations and banks can make profits with our resources and labor force... That is call imperialism...
 
  • #117
Americans do not seem to realize how much disdain the rest of the world have of it. This is extrapolation of course, but most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.
 
  • #118
Polly said:
Americans do not seem to realize how much disdain the rest of the world have of it. This is extrapolation of course, but most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.
Yes, the Chinese government has gone to great length to replace communism with nationalism. And seems to have succeeded partly. Here are some information about human rights in China. Since you are from Honk Kong, you may be fortunate enough to be able to read it without censorship.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/china.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-chn/index
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=china
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #119
Let me begin by saying I am as detached from the PRC government and as politically indifferent as the next Hong Kong person. So do not mistake me for a Chinese patriotic. I have remarked thus far as an earthling, as a human being who is outraged by the senseless killing your government has been fond of doing in different parts of the world. Turning back to your post, if you fail to see how the HR and Taiwanese issues are repeatly used to leverage the best bargaining position by your government, I have nothing to say.
 
  • #120
Polly said:
...most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.
That's the anthropoic principle at work: you won't meet many American-educated Chinese who like America because if they liked America, they likely would have stayed.

And getting an opinion on America from a Chinese student in France or England is as useless as getting an opinion of chocolate iced cream by eating vanilla.
 
  • #121
Burnsys said:
If USA invade my country and try to bring their supposed "Democracy" i will be one more "terrorist"..
So, if the US tried to overthrow a murderous dictator in your country, you'd respond by murdering your own countrymen? I'm confused... :confused:
 
  • #122
Smurf said:
Once again, just because Americans think their Democracy is better than someone else's government, does not mean that they should go over there and make it democratic.
Smurf, what is the purpose of the UN's council on civil rights?
 
  • #123
Polly said:
Let me begin by saying I am as detached from the PRC government and as politically indifferent as the next Hong Kong person. So do not mistake me for a Chinese patriotic. I have remarked thus far as an earthling, as a human being who is outraged by the senseless killing your government has been fond of doing in different parts of the world. Turning back to your post, if you fail to see how the HR and Taiwanese issues are repeatly used to leverage the best bargaining position by your government, I have nothing to say.
According to the last link in my previous post, human rights are deteriorating rapidly in Hong Kong. So indifferent seems to be a poor choice. If for no other reason than that Chinese agents are reportedly monitoring what its citizens are doing and saying on the Internet in other countries.

I would not deny that the US have done many mistakes or outright crimes in it foreign policy. But arguably much less compared with its ability than any other great power before. For example by voluntarily withdrawing and installing democracy in Japan, Germany and Italy. Or by paying for oil, the typical historical patten for the stronger power would have been taking natural resources with force. And Pax Americana has seen the greatest reduction of poverty in world history.
 
Last edited:
  • #124
russ_watters said:
So, if the US tried to overthrow a murderous dictator in your country, you'd respond by murdering your own countrymen? I'm confused... :confused:


nono.. in the 70' america suported a murderous dictatorship in my country... thanks to god i wasnt born yet... for that regime i would have been a terrorist...

The same happened all across latin america, PINOCHET in chile. VIDELA in argentina,RIOS MONTT in guatemala, ARNOLDO ALEMAN nicaragua, VLADIMIRO MONTESINOS Peru, etc. etc.

All murderous dictators supported and trained by America in "The school of americas"...

Like in the 80' america SUPORTED SADAM HUSEIN in irak... i am sure those who oposed sadam in the 80' where called terrorists too...
 
Last edited:
  • #125
russ_watters said:
I'm confused...

The world is complex. We all get confused from time to time.
 
  • #126
The world knows America.

America does not know the world.
 
  • #127
Burnsys said:
nono.. in the 70' america suported a murderous dictatorship in my country... thanks to god i wasnt born yet... for that regime i would have been a terrorist...

The same happened all across latin america, PINOCHET in chile. VIDELA in argentina,RIOS MONTT in guatemala, ARNOLDO ALEMAN nicaragua, VLADIMIRO MONTESINOS Peru, etc. etc.

All murderous dictators supported and trained by America in "The school of americas"...

Like in the 80' america SUPORTED SADAM HUSEIN in irak... i am sure those who oposed sadam in the 80' where called terrorists too...
See my previous post. The support of dictatorships was wrong. The US should have supported democracy and capitalism which it in many cases failed to do. Especially during the cold war. But slowly starting with Carter, the US have been increasingly more active in its support for these ideals, using everything from silent diplomacy to cutting military aid.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr65.html
http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990616.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
I disagree aquamarine, I do not believe the US is becoming any more supportive of Democracy that it was during isolation, however the US has always been a strong supporter of Capitalism.
 
  • #129
Smurf said:
I disagree aquamarine, I do not believe the US is becoming any more supportive of Democracy that it was during isolation, however the US has always been a strong supporter of Capitalism.
As usual, you present no facts. Read the links. Present evidence.
 
  • #130
I'm at a loss as to what you want me to present aquamarine. My perception of US Foreign Policy is that it cares little about the form of government its dealing with provided its economy will allow them to reap the profits of American consumerism.
 
  • #131
Smurf said:
I'm at a loss as to what you want me to present aquamarine. My perception of US Foreign Policy is that it cares little about the form of government its dealing with provided its economy will allow them to reap the profits of American consumerism.
Your perception and opinion is uninteresting without some facts. The US has clearly tried to strengthen democracy and human rights in Latin America in the last two decades.
 
  • #132
Aquamarine said:
The US should have supported democracy and capitalism which it in many cases failed to do.

I think that that is a ridiculous thing to say. While I can think of some arguments for democracy, and even there one should be careful, I don't see what is so specially good about capitalism that you should try to impose it upon others. Let us make the distinction please between a free market economy and capitalism. The first one is a tool to organise economic activity, of which there are indications that it works. The second one is a simplistic ideology, namely that ALL THINKABLE PROBLEMS THE WORLD MAY HAVE are solved by a complete free market system. Of course, through binary goggles most Americans think that there is capitalism and communism (just as stupid an ideology) and that's it, so if you're not a die-hard capitalist, you must be a commie. This is fed in with a spoon since they were kids. But there are many different ways of organizing your economic activity ; most sensible ways give a large part to the free market economy in one way or another. Most sensible ways also realize that not EVERYTHING can be done that way. Even the US itself doesn't apply capitalism fully, because they know that it doesn't work in certain fields.

The US citizens are of course free to choose their own way of organizing their economic activity, but I fail to see completely why you should promote that in other nations (apart from self interest to put other nations in a competition where you are sure to win) as an indispensable good to have and go kill if necessary to do so. You could just as well try to promote, say, your health care system or your way of doing gardening for that matter. The Germans could then export (with guns if necessary) their way of making beer.
 
  • #133
Aquamarine said:
Your perception and opinion is uninteresting without some facts. The US has clearly tried to strengthen democracy and human rights in Latin America in the last two decades.

It depends who is funding/promoting the research behind the 'facts'. History is written by the victor, right? You'd do well to listen to the voices of the people who are affected in the regions concerned, rather than stare at a spreadsheet of facts written by their boss. After all, isn't the idea of democracy to take people's views into account?
 
  • #134
vanesch said:
I think that that is a ridiculous thing to say. While I can think of some arguments for democracy, and even there one should be careful, I don't see what is so specially good about capitalism that you should try to impose it upon others. Let us make the distinction please between a free market economy and capitalism. The first one is a tool to organise economic activity, of which there are indications that it works. The second one is a simplistic ideology, namely that ALL THINKABLE PROBLEMS THE WORLD MAY HAVE are solved by a complete free market system. Of course, through binary goggles most Americans think that there is capitalism and communism (just as stupid an ideology) and that's it, so if you're not a die-hard capitalist, you must be a commie. This is fed in with a spoon since they were kids. But there are many different ways of organizing your economic activity ; most sensible ways give a large part to the free market economy in one way or another. Most sensible ways also realize that not EVERYTHING can be done that way. Even the US itself doesn't apply capitalism fully, because they know that it doesn't work in certain fields.

The US citizens are of course free to choose their own way of organizing their economic activity, but I fail to see completely why you should promote that in other nations (apart from self interest to put other nations in a competition where you are sure to win) as an indispensable good to have and go kill if necessary to do so. You could just as well try to promote, say, your health care system or your way of doing gardening for that matter. The Germans could then export (with guns if necessary) their way of making beer.
There is no evidence for a better alternative than capitalism.

And free trade will not and have not made nations poorer.
 
  • #135
The media ignores most of the violations of human rights that takes place in the world. Their coverage is disproportionate on the US and Israel. There can be no excuse for a lower standard for dictatorships. And this avoiding is dangerous since it gives the impression that dictatorships are preferable.

Here are some of the regimes that are usually ignored.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/040204.htm

The crimes of these regimes can be found here:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/engworld
http://www.hrw.org/countries.html
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/

The media ignores the crimes because they are not allowed by the dictatorships to film and make interviews. And reading some facts is not good television.

Another reason is that the journalists are dominated by the left. That is because they are educated in liberal arts department with little knowledge of the scientific method or economics.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184

Similar patterns and bashing of the US can be found in other countries at least since the hippies of the sixties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136
Aquamarine said:
There is no evidence for a better alternative than capitalism.
And free trade will not and have not made nations poorer.

I will give you a simple example of where the applications of capitalism didn't work out: railroads. Look at British railroads, and look at continental Europe's railroads.
Another one: look at the power supply in California, and in Europe.
Another one: look at healthcare in France versus healthcare in Britain.
Look at the state aids to agriculture, both in Europe and the US.

But that's not the point. I'm not fighting "free trade" or the "free market".
I'm fighting the ideology that this is the BEST SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING.
The funny thing with die-hard capitalists is that they DEFINE what is best as that what is done by capitalism. But then your statements are tautological.

The political question to be solved is what kind of society you want. The economical question is then how to implement an organisation of economical activity that brings you as close as possible to that society.

Now, most (capitalist) economy courses start explaining you that the main problem to solve is the matching of the scarceness of resources with the infinity of desires by consumers. Then they go to demonstrate that the free market approach always maximises the sum of satisfied desires (which comes down to maximise productivity).

But that's begging the question of whether in all matters, it is maximal productivity (maximal wealth) that is to be the political goal. It might have been, years ago, when essential resources were indeed scarce. But now, MOST of western economy is essentially based on entertainment and the desire for it is artificially held high by publicity. Is it politically desirable to maximise entertainment for all, at the expense of more basic resources for poor people ? Should society optimise its production resources to make 3th generation mobile telephones (because, through a feedback system of publicity, that is the expressed "need" felt by the market), while some people are starving, have no house to live in, have no healthcare ?

So it might be a political goal to sarcrifice part of the potential maximal wealth, in order to define a minimum level of living standards for all members of the society. Then you are still using the tool of the free market and free trade, but you're not applying capitalism.
 
  • #137
Stupidity, thy name is ego.

P.S. Sorry Vanesch, our posts apparently got there at the same time. My post is in response to Aquamarine's.
 
Last edited:
  • #138
Aquamarine said:
Their coverage is disproportionate on the US and Israel. There can be no excuse for a lower standard for dictatorships. And this avoiding is dangerous since it gives the impression that dictatorships are preferable.

I think you miss the point. The US is not taken equal to those dictatorships. You wouldn't want to be on the same list, would you ?
It is a bit like saying that it is unfair that federal judges are helt to higher standards of integrity than average thiefs. Of course they are ! So that's no US bashing, on the contrary.
 
  • #139
vanesch said:
I will give you a simple example of where the applications of capitalism didn't work out: railroads. Look at British railroads, and look at continental Europe's railroads.
Another one: look at the power supply in California, and in Europe.
Another one: look at healthcare in France versus healthcare in Britain.
Look at the state aids to agriculture, both in Europe and the US.
You give no evidence for any market failure. And the US is not the perfect capitalistic society.

What is your point about railroads? Helthcare is socialized in both Britain and France. The state aid to agriculture is bad in both Europe and the US. Regarding California and energy:
http://www.rppi.org/electricity/ebrief011001.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #140
vanesch said:
Now, most (capitalist) economy courses start explaining you that the main problem to solve is the matching of the scarceness of resources with the infinity of desires by consumers. Then they go to demonstrate that the free market approach always maximises the sum of satisfied desires (which comes down to maximise productivity).

But that's begging the question of whether in all matters, it is maximal productivity (maximal wealth) that is to be the political goal. It might have been, years ago, when essential resources were indeed scarce. But now, MOST of western economy is essentially based on entertainment and the desire for it is artificially held high by publicity. Is it politically desirable to maximise entertainment for all, at the expense of more basic resources for poor people ? Should society optimise its production resources to make 3th generation mobile telephones (because, through a feedback system of publicity, that is the expressed "need" felt by the market), while some people are starving, have no house to live in, have no healthcare ?

So it might be a political goal to sarcrifice part of the potential maximal wealth, in order to define a minimum level of living standards for all members of the society. Then you are still using the tool of the free market and free trade, but you're not applying capitalism.
You fail to see that the need for capitalism is greatest in the third world were there is little capitalism but great poverty.

And regarding wealth in general, more money will probably not make you more happy if you are healthy and are able to earn a modest amount of money. But if you have any serious disease, mental or physical, money will make you happier. It can buy outstanding psychotherapy, steadily more expensive medications, the best surgeons and fabulous care. Not to mention food and shelter. And we will all need this we when get old, if not before.

More wealth in a society increases the average length of life, decreases infant and mother mortality and makes it possible for people with diseases like diabetes to survive. It allows adequate nutrition, preventing previously common diseases like rickets, blindness and goitre. It probably increases intelligence (The Flynn effect).

And more wealth allows shorter working hours, more holidays and allows children and the elderly to avoid working. It gives better and less dangerous working conditions. It allows choice in work. And better housing, protecting for example from cold and heat. Dental care so not most people have lost their teeths by the age of forty. And at the end of life, it can make death painless instead of the painful misery that was earlier the fate of, for example, cancer patients.

And more wealth in society in the future will allow more of these benefits.

So money will probably not make you much more happy when you are in good physical and mental health and enjoy your work and the people around you. Otherwise, money can buy happiness.
 
  • #141
Aquamarine said:
You fail to see that the need for capitalism is greatest in the third world were there is little capitalism but great poverty.

Yes, I fail to see that. Open capitalism just allows for more poverty there, because they cannot compete yet with the West. So normally they should be competed completely out of the market. The only thing they have as competitive ressource, is very cheap labor. So indeed, if they sacrifice two generations working in 19th century conditions, they'll be over it.
And, BTW, is it true that most African states are not open to capitalism ?

And regarding wealth in general, more money will probably not make you more happy if you are healthy and are able to earn a modest amount of money. But if you have any serious disease, mental or physical, money will make you happier. It can buy outstanding psychotherapy, steadily more expensive medications, the best surgeons and fabulous care. Not to mention food and shelter. And we will all need this we when get old, if not before.

Except if that is considered a political goal for everybody, and is state-provided. Most Western states can do so. That will take away resources for 3th generation mobile telephones, though.

And more wealth allows shorter working hours, more holidays and allows children and the elderly to avoid working.

That's funny. I know it is less of a problem in the US, but most European countries have an unemployment "problem". That's, by itself, a startling observation: after we've done all the work we wanted, we don't need all hands! So why do people who work then have to work so hard, while they would like to have more free time ??
So unemployment shouldn't be a problem, but a goal !
 
  • #142
Aquamarine said:
You fail to see that the need for capitalism is greatest in the third world were there is little capitalism but great poverty.

And regarding wealth in general, more money will probably not make you more happy if you are healthy and are able to earn a modest amount of money. But if you have any serious disease, mental or physical, money will make you happier. It can buy outstanding psychotherapy, steadily more expensive medications, the best surgeons and fabulous care. Not to mention food and shelter. And we will all need this we when get old, if not before.

More wealth in a society increases the average length of life, decreases infant and mother mortality and makes it possible for people with diseases like diabetes to survive. It allows adequate nutrition, preventing previously common diseases like rickets, blindness and goitre. It probably increases intelligence (The Flynn effect).

And more wealth allows shorter working hours, more holidays and allows children and the elderly to avoid working. It gives better and less dangerous working conditions. It allows choice in work. And better housing, protecting for example from cold and heat. Dental care so not most people have lost their teeths by the age of forty. And at the end of life, it can make death painless instead of the painful misery that was earlier the fate of, for example, cancer patients.

And more wealth in society in the future will allow more of these benefits.

So money will probably not make you much more happy when you are in good physical and mental health and enjoy your work and the people around you. Otherwise, money can buy happiness.


What do you knwon about the 3rd world problems... More capitalism? today 90% of the causes of poverty in 3rd world countrys is THE DEBT. the debt we owe to the imf bid, etc... This debt started with this "ERRORS" you say america made.. when they supported murderous dictators in the 70'...
Now 50% of our budget go directly to pay interest of this debt...

Here ECONOMIC NOBEL WINNER has something to say about the imf...
I am livin in a 3rd world country and believe me... this is the more logical explanation of what is happening here.

PLEASE. PLEASEEEEE READ...:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold

JOE STIGLITZ: TODAY’S WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS
by Greg Palast

The World Bank’s former Chief Economist’s accusations are eye-popping - including how the IMF and US Treasury fixed the Russian elections

"It has condemned people to death," the former apparatchik told me. This was like a scene out of Le Carre. The brilliant old agent comes in from the cold, crosses to our side, and in hours of debriefing, empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of a political ideology he now realizes has gone rotten.

And here before me was a far bigger catch than some used Cold War spy. Joseph Stiglitz was Chief Economist of the World Bank. To a great extent, the new world economic order was his theory come to life.

I "debriefed" Stigltiz over several days, at Cambridge University, in a London hotel and finally in Washington in April 2001 during the big confab of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But instead of chairing the meetings of ministers and central bankers, Stiglitz was kept exiled safely behind the blue police cordons, the same as the nuns carrying a large wooden cross, the Bolivian union leaders, the parents of AIDS victims and the other ‘anti-globalization’ protesters. The ultimate insider was now on the outside.

In 1999 the World Bank fired Stiglitz. He was not allowed quiet retirement; US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, I’m told, demanded a public excommunication for Stiglitz’ having expressed his first mild dissent from globalization World Bank style.

Here in Washington we completed the last of several hours of exclusive interviews for The Observer and BBC TV’s Newsnight about the real, often hidden, workings of the IMF, World Bank, and the bank’s 51% owner, the US Treasury.

And here, from sources unnamable (not Stiglitz), we obtained a cache of documents marked, "confidential," "restricted," and "not otherwise (to be) disclosed without World Bank authorization."

Stiglitz helped translate one from bureaucratise, a "Country Assistance Strategy." There’s an Assistance Strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation. But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank’s staff ‘investigation’ consists of close inspection of a nation’s 5-star hotels. It concludes with the Bank staff meeting some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a ‘restructuring agreement’ pre-drafted for his ‘voluntary’ signature (I have a selection of these).

Each nation’s economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.

Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, ‘Briberization.’ Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank’s demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest ‘briberization’ of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don’t care if it’s a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.

Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet as Chairman of the President’s council of economic advisors.

Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia’s industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.

After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is ‘Capital Market Liberalization.’ In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, ‘The IMF riot.’

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You’d almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let’s get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.

That’s not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador’s currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.

The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it’s bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.

Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia ‘subsidizing’ food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out, intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia’s financiers and, by extension, the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia’s new president in the nation’s first democratic election. The World Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury’s vault in Washington.

Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture.

In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly.

Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO’s intellectual property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. "They don’t care," said the professor of the corporations and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."

By the way, don’t be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school ‘triggers’ a requirement to accept every ‘conditionality’ - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.

Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West’s push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy."

And they don’t work. Black Africa’s productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."

So then I turned on Stiglitz. OK, Mr Smart-Guy Professor, how would you help developing nations? Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an attack at the heart of "landlordism," on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant’s crops. So I had to ask the professor: as you were top economist at the World Bank, why didn’t the Bank follow your advice?

"If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That’s not high on their agenda." Apparently not.

Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the IMF simply demanded more free market policies.

"It’s a little like the Middle Ages," the insider told me, "When the patient died they would say, ‘well, he stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him.’"

I took away from my talks with the professor that the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers
 
  • #143
Yes, I fail to see that. Open capitalism just allows for more poverty there, because they cannot compete yet with the West. So normally they should be competed completely out of the market. The only thing they have as competitive ressource, is very cheap labor. So indeed, if they sacrifice two generations working in 19th century conditions, they'll be over it.
This would be a great improvement since they are now dying in 14th century conditions.
And, BTW, is it true that most African states are not open to capitalism ?
Look for yourself in some of the indexes of economic freedom:
http://www.freetheworld.com/
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/
That's funny. I know it is less of a problem in the US, but most European countries have an unemployment "problem". That's, by itself, a startling observation: after we've done all the work we wanted, we don't need all hands! So why do people who work then have to work so hard, while they would like to have more free time ??
So unemployment shouldn't be a problem, but a goal !
The working time cannot be decreased to zero. The US and western europe have now too little capitalism. All long-term projections shows that the current welfare state cannot be supported in the future. Too many old people too support and too many young who are able to work but not doing so. They are not working because regulations like minimum wage and free welfare. The system is headed to bankruptcy.

And since there are more welfare and regulations in Europe, they have less growth and are rapidly becoming poorer compared to the US. Compare for example the income of engineers in Europe and the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #144
  • #145
Aquamarine said:
Burnsys, we have already discussed this before:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47317

In short, the WB and the IMF are state agencies using taxpayer's money to make themselves and the most corrupt of ruling elite in the third world rich.

yes they make the ruling elite in the third world corrupt and welthier..
but their are controlled by the ruling elite in the first world...

Explain me why the imf DEMAND our government to alow a raise in the phone services, electric, water, and all our critical infrastructure services which are in hands of international corporations from the 1rs world (Ruling elite of the first world)

The imf is controlled by america and europe ELITE... which obiusly is a partner of your goverment...
 
  • #146
Burnsys said:
yes they make the ruling elite in the third world corrupt and welthier..
but their are controlled by the ruling elite in the first world...

Explain me why the imf DEMAND our government to alow a raise in the phone services, electric, water, and all our critical infrastructure services which are in hands of international corporations from the 1rs world (Ruling elite of the first world)

The imf is controlled by america and europe ELITE... which obiusly is a partner of your goverment...
Who said that the ruling elite in the western worlds understands the benefits of capitalism? Or that they will not try to gain personal advantages by restricting it?

Regarding Argentina, I have already given explanations for its economic tragedy compared to more capitalistic countries in the previous link.
 
  • #147
Aquamarine said:
Who said that the ruling elite in the western worlds understands the benefits of capitalism? Or that they will not try to gain personal advantages by restricting it?

Regarding Argentina, I have already given explanations for its economic tragedy compared to more capitalistic countries in the previous link.


If they are the ruling elite of the capitalism system i am real sure they understands it's benefits... if not they will not be the ruling elite. lol

And they gain personal advantages not restricting it, but liberalizing it, couse if a multinational corporation want to get more profits from another country, they need to open the victims market, they need to be "Free" to do what they want, and they field is capitalism, that is where they move. they are the number 1 promoters of capitalism
 
  • #148
Burnsys said:
If they are the ruling elite of the capitalism system i am real sure they understands it's benefits... if not they will not be the ruling elite. lol

And they gain personal advantages not restricting it, but liberalizing it, couse if a multinational corporation want to get more profits from another country, they need to open the victims market, they need to be "Free" to do what they want, and they field is capitalism, that is where they move. they are the number 1 promoters of capitalism
If you think that the ruling elites must be smart about economics, look no further than communistic or fundamentalistic states.

And unfortunately capitalists have often been promoters of less capitalism, if this can reduce competition against their own business. Every company that is in trouble wants legal protection from competitors and state support.

And as usual, you present no evidence that capitalism is harmful and ignore the overwhelming evidence that shows that more capitalism in a country means less poverty.
 
  • #149
Aquamarine said:
If you think that the ruling elites must be smart about economics, look no further than communistic or fundamentalistic states.

And unfortunately capitalists have often been promoters of less capitalism, if this can reduce competition against their own business. Every company that is in trouble wants legal protection from competitors and state support.

And as usual, you present no evidence that capitalism is harmful and ignore the overwhelming evidence that shows that more capitalism in a country means less poverty.

Of Course they are smart about economics, at leats capitalist elite, i don't know about comunist or islamic elite. But great part of capitalist elite are bankers, and of course a banker know about economics, they mabe be promote less capitalism in countrys of the first world. but overhere they have no competition, couse they have bougth it all with loans from their banks..

Here 90% of the market is owned by 2 communications companies,, 1 french, 1 from italy, 1 Water service company from usa, 3 oil companies: 2 from usa, 1 from spain, 1 electric company from usa, 1 bank from every first world country, the rest which represent less than 20% is left to us.. the same happen with the food industry, electronic, mining, clothes, automovile, etc... they bougth it all with loans.. they have no more competition here..
i don't say capitalism is harmfull, but "This Capitalism" USA is spreading in the world, by the use of brutal force, or by extorsion becouse of the debts, is not good.
 
  • #150
Burnsys said:
Of Course they are smart about economics, at leats capitalist elite, i don't know about comunist or islamic elite. But great part of capitalist elite are bankers, and of course a banker know about economics, they mabe be promote less capitalism in countrys of the first world. but overhere they have no competition, couse they have bougth it all with loans from their banks.
The richest man in the world is Bill Gates - he knows software, but that's about it: he seems genuinely confused about business and economics.
 
Back
Top