America: Land of the monopolistic, Home of the Hypocritical (1783 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.58 on 121 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Williamson (View user info) at 2005-07-13 04:47:59 EDT
<Disclaimer: Old news, but I've been waiting to see where it's been going>
This post goes out to every one of you yankees I have endlessly argued about how state-ownership of major industry will serve the citizenry of the nation. Especially Steven Durel... fucking douche.
So, how does it feel?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162338,00.html
Or should I say, Ni hao ma motherfuckers?
Looks like suddenly America has a bit of competition on it's hands, and the concepts of capitalism and freedom of enterprise (which have led to countless worldwide takeovers in America's favour)that Americans hold, oh so dear, aren't looking so sweet when you are looking at it from the angle of the one being bought out.
So, Durel, D_Prime, Rad, and god knows who else... Anyone here who has ever uttered the words "I support laisser faire capitalism" and called Thorpe, Wiggles and myself we were socialist scum, how does it feel now that China is beginning to, shall I say, own you? It seems that most arrogant Americans are willing to support the system of individualistic economic capitalism UNLESS it's fucking them over.
So, come on America. For once tell me the fucking truth, are you going to be true to your word and let China simply buy your arse out, company by company, year by year, decade by decade until America becomes just like so many other nations worldwide that you've bought out; or are you going to be a bunch of hypocritical twats and stop capitalism in it's tracks by disallowing a Chinese takeover?
I'm really looking for an answer here! Who here is going to allow themselves to get fucked in the arse by letting Chinese rule your industries (who know's what'll be next), who is going tobe a fucking hypocrit and still pretend they believe in capitalism but try to disallow Chinese enterprise in America, and who is going to make up some bullshit excuse like "it's a dire national security threat" as your politicians seem to be doing?
Or - better yet - who's going to realise that with capitalism, you have no control over your industries and corporations will invariably do what's best for them, not the nation, and realise state-owned industry is a better way to go?
User Reviews
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-08-14 00:01:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for 'Steven Durel... fucking douche.' I've always hated him.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2005-07-24 16:50:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
America, Fuck Yeah!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-24 16:34:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
*I didn't say that extremes are inherently good
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-24 16:33:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
http://www.ubersite.com/m/70545#1447469
Actually Wiggles, I didn't say that extremes aren't inherently good. I said that balance ISNT inherently good. When some thing is directly and full better than some thing else, you shouldn't have balance for the *sake* of balance, and so saying that something is an extreme and therefore bad is stupid. At the same time, if you balance two things that are bad, or it would be better to have more of one, it is a bad thing. But, if you NEED both for the other to work, then a certain balance is good.
You're using extremes here in saying that, because I don't think that only balances ever work, then I must think that only extremes ever work.
I think that capitalism is absolutely better than socialism, so I want a lot of it. I think that lassiez-faire is better than a mixed economy. It's not because I saw that compeltele capitalism is better than complete socialism and figured that those were the only options. They aren't. However, complete capitalism happens to be the best one.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-19 09:59:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
borderline nazi are we? http://www.ubersite.com/m/71000#1461029
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-07-19 06:49:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-19 05:12:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
Post your gundam UM thing biatch!
---
psychological warfare my man.
It's not like I'm still writing it or anything... really.
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-07-18 09:17:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-17 06:06:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
While I disagree, I love how so many people have missed the sarcasm.
Good luck in UM3 old chap.
--
Same to you old bean.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-17 08:35:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-17 08:07:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm impressed this inded up with a positive rating Williamson- testament to your Uber fans.
-=-=-=-==--=-=
So am I. It's poorly written because I had worked a good 10 or so hours of manual labour that day too. And on top of that, it's anti-American with yanks making up a good 2/3 of uber.
But then again, even Lisa's arrogant crap ends up with a good ranking.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-17 08:22:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HeadkickRodeo (user info) at 2005-07-15 15:13:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey, you can't be down on all of us. We're not all neo-con commie fuckwits, its just that none of us normals get any media. I mean, you're talking about a land where the "Republicans" have never read Plato's REPUBLIC book or even have the slightest idea what a republic is. Our politicians are all bought and paid for by the international corporations, which are all egalitarian PC cunts (which means we get weird fucks Bill O'Reilly...really puts the CON in conservative...buncha pinko bastards). Equality is the greatest lie of the...well...ever.
BTW, any corp that does outsourcing or hires illegals should have their CEO's tried and hung for treason. Capitalism just plain sucks...its just a form of imperfect communism. Exploit the workers, go for whats cheaper (even if it sucks), and fuck Nature! And it doesn't matter who's in office, lefty or righty; they're STILL going to be egalitarian capitalists more than willing to take bribes (I mean, "campaign contributions"!) and help out people who don't deserve it. Pointless wars against ANYthing (really, did it effect YOU that Vietnam was Commie? Were you REALLY that terrified of Iraq? Saddam may have been a bastard, but he was the ONLY guy strong enough to hold that region together), people holding two jobs just to get by, etc, etc. Oh, and of course, bend over and spread for that little Jewish hate-state known as Israel, lord knows THEY'RE cause is a righteous one that I really want my tax money going towards..
I had to register just to say this. :D
----------------------------------------------------------
What
the
fuck?
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-17 08:07:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm impressed this inded up with a positive rating Williamson- testament to your Uber fans.
Submitted by HeadkickRodeo (user info) at 2005-07-15 15:13:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey, you can't be down on all of us. We're not all neo-con commie fuckwits, its just that none of us normals get any media. I mean, you're talking about a land where the "Republicans" have never read Plato's REPUBLIC book or even have the slightest idea what a republic is. Our politicians are all bought and paid for by the international corporations, which are all egalitarian PC cunts (which means we get weird fucks Bill O'Reilly...really puts the CON in conservative...buncha pinko bastards). Equality is the greatest lie of the...well...ever.
BTW, any corp that does outsourcing or hires illegals should have their CEO's tried and hung for treason. Capitalism just plain sucks...its just a form of imperfect communism. Exploit the workers, go for whats cheaper (even if it sucks), and fuck Nature! And it doesn't matter who's in office, lefty or righty; they're STILL going to be egalitarian capitalists more than willing to take bribes (I mean, "campaign contributions"!) and help out people who don't deserve it. Pointless wars against ANYthing (really, did it effect YOU that Vietnam was Commie? Were you REALLY that terrified of Iraq? Saddam may have been a bastard, but he was the ONLY guy strong enough to hold that region together), people holding two jobs just to get by, etc, etc. Oh, and of course, bend over and spread for that little Jewish hate-state known as Israel, lord knows THEY'RE cause is a righteous one that I really want my tax money going towards..
I had to register just to say this. :D
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-15 11:13:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Loki owns all of you
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-07-15 09:47:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
11.47v friday you should eb too druynk to post shit like this/
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2005-07-15 09:16:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
'son, You are the only cunt who is being a whiny bitch about Unocal/CNOOC.
For your education; Chevron made an offer to buy Unocal. The Chinese government in the form of CNOOC later offered a few $Billion more. Unocal shareholders vote on Chevron's offer soon and are likely to accept it because it is clear the US government will not allow a deal to go through with a communist country. We fucking hate communism even worse than socialism.
<such an important part of American oil.> Unocal represents about 1% of US oil supply.
<Enjoy being part of China's "Eminent Domain" buddy>
Eminent domain means the US government can take property back anytime for any reason. It is impossible, by definition, for the US to be part of China's eminent domain.
<America does NOT "welcome, savor, and encourage competition.>
'son, you just utterly contradicted yourself. How can you complain that the US is capitalist at the same time you state that she is not? Dumbass.
<I'd prefer to live in a country where, get this, our infrastructure and major economic players are on our side.>
Once again, you have utterly contradict yourself. You complain that the US is protecting her national interest at the same time you tout Austrilia's same policy.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-15 09:03:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Loki?
Calm down, read it again.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-15 09:02:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-07-15 08:42:46 (#)
Ranking: -2
HOLY SHIT THIS IS AN OUTRAGE
There are regulations restricting capitalism in this country?
I won't stand for it, I simply won't stand for it.
Where does something like this lead?
Next you'll be telling me that there are labor, environmental, and safety regulations that companies must meet.
What if they start enforcing anti-dumping laws or predatory business regulations?
shit what then
We could end up with a whole alphabet soup of agencies: DOL, OSHA, EEOC, FDA.
At the very least there is nothing like a Securities & Exchange Commission that has to approve this type of thing.
-===-==-===--=
...the fuck?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-07-15 08:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
HOLY SHIT THIS IS AN OUTRAGE
There are regulations restricting capitalism in this country?
I won't stand for it, I simply won't stand for it.
Where does something like this lead?
Next you'll be telling me that there are labor, environmental, and safety regulations that companies must meet.
What if they start enforcing anti-dumping laws or predatory business regulations?
shit what then
We could end up with a whole alphabet soup of agencies: DOL, OSHA, EEOC, FDA.
At the very least there is nothing like a Securities & Exchange Commission that has to approve this type of thing.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-15 08:17:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck it.
We need a kick in the ass on our energy policy anyway.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-15 08:07:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-15 07:45:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
I was just thinking about this.
Who fucking cares if china buys out exxon?
It doesn't mean a goddamnthing
--
unocal, whatever.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It basically means China will grow stronger while America deals with less capacity to get the black gold flowing.
Decisions based on Chinese gains and not Americans will drive your petrol prices up as supplies drop further and further...
America has had a policy of stockpiling oil as well. Your capacity to do this now that you don't have unocal is going to drop...
Basically you have a dwindling supply of oil and you've just sold one of your major taps to an enemy nation. With oil the greatest, most important thing in the world do you really want the cards in China's hands?
Fuck China!
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-15 07:59:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-15 07:45:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
I was just thinking about this.
Who fucking cares if china buys out exxon?
It doesn't mean a goddamnthing
---------------------------
Are you kidding me? Think of where the profit is going - shareholders in China, who won't be recirculating it around your country's market. Not as much as American shareholders anyway.
Submitted by Ragman (user info) at 2005-07-15 07:51:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-15 07:46:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
unocal, whatever.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-15 07:45:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I was just thinking about this.
Who fucking cares if china buys out exxon?
It doesn't mean a goddamnthing
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-15 07:38:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:10:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
-2, not for a bad post wilbur, but for being a twit.
First off, you can't "Buy-out" America. It's called eminent domain.
Next, America welcomes, savors, and encourages competition. This is far from new.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Uh, despite what you said later this is what I was talking about. America does NOT "welcome, savor, and encourage competition." If you were, I wouldn't have written the fucking post to begin with because you cunts are all having a whiny bitch that the Chinese are buying such an important part of American oil.
Enjoy being part of China's "Eminent Domain" buddy. I'd prefer to live in a country where, get this, our infrastructure and major economic players are on our side.
Submitted by Huber_the_Nose (user info) at 2005-07-15 05:26:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
meh.....getting fucked in the ass by the chinese wont be so bad.....they have little dicks
Submitted by jack0173 (user info) at 2005-07-15 02:21:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Damn right, although...
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:01:51 (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, noes! It's like an episode of The Twilight Zone...
Uh, you may want to consider linking another source, just for backup. You're taking a chance referencing Fox News.
------------------------
Fox is teh ghey
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2005-07-14 14:30:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If you smoke 'caine you a stupid mothafucka.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-07-14 12:01:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2005-07-13 23:30:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
"At its core, capitalism is the pursuit of as much fucking money as you can get."
After several seconds of thought, it occurred to me that this is only partially true...Capitalism is the pursuit of wealth; however, it has warped into the pursuit of wealth...with no regards to society. That is our problem. I support capitalism, I believe every man (and woman) should be able to try to make the best living possible, but all men and women should keep in consideration the greater effects their actions will have on their own society, the people they work with and market to. There now, I think I'm quite finished.
--------------------
Therefore, you need to regulate business so that greedy assholes in suits don't let things get out of hand.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2005-07-13 23:30:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"At its core, capitalism is the pursuit of as much fucking money as you can get."
After several seconds of thought, it occurred to me that this is only partially true...Capitalism is the pursuit of wealth; however, it has warped into the pursuit of wealth...with no regards to society. That is our problem. I support capitalism, I believe every man (and woman) should be able to try to make the best living possible, but all men and women should keep in consideration the greater effects their actions will have on their own society, the people they work with and market to. There now, I think I'm quite finished.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2005-07-13 23:26:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Don't worry about China developing any new nuclear weapons.
They would never find an unpopulated place to test them.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2005-07-13 23:25:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No shit corporations will do what's best with them. If China's offering the higher price, China should get what it wants. At its core, capitalism is the pursuit of as much fucking money as you can get. If you have to sell your company out to some foreign investor to do so, then that's what you do. If an American company wants to buy out another company, its just going to have to offer a higher price. And if American companies and consumers are going to let that happen, then they deserve the economic effects that come with it. Cheaper products, perhaps, but if no one has a job, they won't be sold. If we weren't a million trillion dollars in debt I'd feel a lot better...But what the hell, we'll be on Mars within the century!
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2005-07-13 23:22:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by jinhenkim (user info) at 2005-07-13 23:17:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
good point. horribly written.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-07-13 22:54:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Eh, I need to start proofreading my reviews before submitting them.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-07-13 22:53:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-13 18:56:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
In your eyes one leads to the other and so there needs to be no 'balance' between them. However, how would you feel if I wanted to balance 'my being an idiot' and 'my not being an idiot'? That's stupid, because one is much more favorable than the other.
I'm exemplifying that the balance of contradicting factors isn't the absolute key to virtue, because usually or at least often, one is directly more favorable in any likely amount. """""
--------------------
My god, you are dull. You used a bunch of words there to say utter crap. Seriously, dude. Let me translate what you JUST said. You're saying:
Extreme capitalism is obviously better than extreme socialism, so we shouldn't even try to find a middleground, we should just operate under extreme capitalism.
Do you realize how retarded this is? You're assuming that there are only two options for an economy to be managed when there are infinite ways. Let me put this ITOH. (In Terms Of Hitler)
Hitler was worse than Mussolini, therefore Mussolini is an ideal leader.
Submitted by WellFedEthiopian (user info) at 2005-07-13 22:43:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I would not feel too entirely comfortable with this situation due to the following reasons:
1. The majority stakeholder of CNOOC is the Chinese government.
2. While its economy has been leaning more and more to capitalism, the Chinese government is still a Communist government that suppresses all dissent along with a spotty human rights record.
3. Many of the Unocal assets they are trying to acquire can potentially compromise U.S. security.
4. The fact that they have one of, if not, THE largest standing army in the world.
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2005-07-13 22:18:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
China is nothing. A backwards society blessed with Western attention.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-13 18:56:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In your eyes one leads to the other and so there needs to be no 'balance' between them. However, how would you feel if I wanted to balance 'my being an idiot' and 'my not being an idiot'? That's stupid, because one is much more favorable than the other. I'm exemplifying that the balance of contradicting factors isn't the absolute key to virtue, because usually or at least often, one is directly more favorable in any likely amount.
Or, if I was wrong to take what you said literally: how about a balance between you going to hell and you fucking off. So there!
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-07-13 18:35:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
or how about you try balancing 'shutting the fuck up' and 'not being a complete idiot'
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-13 16:45:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes, let's balance 'food' and 'poison,' or 'happiness' and 'unhappiness,' or 'productivity' and 'unproductivity,' or 'liberty' and 'statism.' Let's balance them.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-07-13 16:23:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Apollo hit the nail on the head with what he said about balance. That's the key, and a number of countries across the globe are achieving balance, while the United States government is actually funding irresponsible corporations.
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-07-13 15:57:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't agree with the fellow who wrote this. I believe that any country can have great social programs in place without the need of having its government control the economy. However, the capitalism that we preach about here in the States is completely different from what is actually practiced. The combination of corporations attempting to maximize profits and incorporating to avoid personal risk and accountability make for a bad combination.
You are looking at corporations that don't make or enforce law and governments that do make and enforce laws without bias. All the government should do is maintain a level playing field. However, that is rarely the case because our politicians are controlled by corporations and they only represent the highest bidders.
So, much of the growth in corporations come from government handouts at the expense of existing social programs. They also come from consolidation of monopoly power through needless mergers, while already existing anti-trust laws are ignored and congress ignores waves of corporate crime. These corporations take jobs overseas, exploit tax loopholes and demand lucrative government contracts without worrying about the impact it has on society.
It was a disgrace after 9/11 to have our taxpayer dollars bailout the airline industry that was already faltering under its own mismanagement. Of course, after them came the insurance companies and others with their hands extending looking for handouts.
Perhaps I am wrong here. It won't be the first or last time I'm wrong. However, this doesn't look like capitalistic behavior to me.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-07-13 15:21:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
China doesn't own me. People often forget this, but I currently live in Canada. But, China is doing well because it's becoming more capitalist, and the economic efficency isn't the basis on which I support capitalism, but the moral meaning in it.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2005-07-13 14:08:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:10:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
-2, not for a bad post wilbur, but for being a twit.
First off, you can't "Buy-out" America. It's called eminent domain.
Next, America welcomes, savors, and encourages competition. This is far from new.
There are Japanese, German, and Korean owned car companies manufacturing in the US, British owned oil (BP bought Amoco and Arco), French Aerospace, Arab electronic, Taiwanese financial firms, Australian emu farms (haha), the list goes on and on. Foreign investment is critical to the US economy. 100's of $Billions per year are poured back into the US; bringing jobs, tax revenue, wealth and prosperity. In addition, foreign competition is critical to keeping consumer prices down in the US.
The Chinese government is Communist. A failed system of state owned industry. The only reason the Chinese economy has been growing recently is their transition to a capitalist economy with privately held businesses. The Chinese allow child labor in what amounts to slavery. Unfair trade practices (such as the Yuan being pegged to the Dollar) have led to a huge trade imbalance. If the reds want to purchase currently US held assets, they will have to make concessions. In capitalism all the cards are in play, not just money. Blocking a Chinese buy for Geopolitical reasons is not hypocritical nor does it fly in the face of capitalism.
Watch and learn 'son. All is not what it may seem on the surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the proper term is... "Owned."
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2005-07-13 13:54:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Listen to Apollo (and I don't say that often). Middle ground is good.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-07-13 13:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-07-13 10:47:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
Fair enough of an argument, except for the fact that China is a threat to US national security, a leading oppressor of human rights, and a Communist nation. The same thing went down with Japan in the 80s - people got a bit nervous when the Japs started buying up a lot, but nobody stopped them. _______
And do you all remember what happened to the Japs on that deal? They got FUCKED in the ass, hard.
All that stuff they bought, Pebble Beach, Rockefeller Center, the Japs lost big money on all those deals.
Let me remind you of some history, kids - swindling foreigners on real-estate deals is a time-honored practice that Americans have been pulling since the early days of the Republic.
We've done it to the English, the French, the Germans, the Saudis, the Japanese, now it's China's turn to get taken for a ride.
Submitted by Bushy (user info) at 2005-07-13 13:04:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are a racist.
The underlying implication of your post is that you think a chinese run business cannot possibly be run as well, as responsibly, as ethically, as an american run one.
I can already hear you screaming about china's poor human rights record, poor wages, etc etc. But, here's the rub. A Chinese run business in America is subject to, yes, thats right, American law. Now, i've never studied US law, but i'm pretty damn sure that it includes some sort of minimum working conditions, minimum wage, and other social controls. Maybe not as strict as you would like, but they exist. So, just as if the business was run by a white man, there are some things that they just can't do.
Now, as for your accusation of hypocrisy, i think that may have some merit. Although, i don't see any evidence to back this up, what with all the international business intrest that already exists in america.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 12:08:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:43:08 (#)
Ranking: 2
Still, if you've got a beef that big I'm sure there must be some kind of intense and deeply personal motivation behind it."""
I'm just a hateful fucker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you have your reasons. You're not a bad man Caul, not a bad man at all. Just angry, why is none of my business and I would not disgrace myself by asking. We've all watched angry people's anger destroy everything and isolate them from everyone that they love. There is no joy in anger, no happiness, but people are never angry to seek joy. Anger is the blood before the scab.
I hope you feel at peace again some day my freind.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:43:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Still, if you've got a beef that big I'm sure there must be some kind of intense and deeply personal motivation behind it."""
I'm just a hateful fucker.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:14:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:08:40 (#)
Ranking: 2
What happened? Some elitist northern prick rude to one of those Canadian hotties? I'll kill him."""
It happens all the time. I've seen a group of about 30 american men from all range of ages scream at a girl on the other side of the metro rail: "heeeeeeeeeeere froggie...heeeeeeeeeere frog! hahahahahha!"
Just 1/100000 of all the examples I have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely that would just mean those particular people are arseholes. Still, if you've got a beef that big I'm sure there must be some kind of intense and deeply personal motivation behind it. Whatever it is I hope that one day you find peace and never let it consume you.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:13:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:10:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
-2, not for a bad post wilbur, but for being a twit.
First off, you can't "Buy-out" America. It's called eminent domain.
Next, America welcomes, savors, and encourages competition. This is far from new.
There are Japanese, German, and Korean owned car companies manufacturing in the US, British owned oil (BP bought Amoco and Arco), French Aerospace, Arab electronic, Taiwanese financial firms, Australian emu farms (haha), the list goes on and on. Foreign investment is critical to the US economy. 100's of $Billions per year are poured back into the US; bringing jobs, tax revenue, wealth and prosperity. In addition, foreign competition is critical to keeping consumer prices down in the US.
The Chinese government is Communist. A failed system of state owned industry. The only reason the Chinese economy has been growing recently is their transition to a capitalist economy with privately held businesses. The Chinese allow child labor in what amounts to slavery. Unfair trade practices (such as the Yuan being pegged to the Dollar) have led to a huge trade imbalance. If the reds want to purchase currently US held assets, they will have to make concessions. In capitalism all the cards are in play, not just money. Blocking a Chinese buy for Geopolitical reasons is not hypocritical nor does it fly in the face of capitalism.
Watch and learn 'son. All is not what it may seem on the surface.
======
Interesting.
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:10:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2, not for a bad post wilbur, but for being a twit.
First off, you can't "Buy-out" America. It's called eminent domain.
Next, America welcomes, savors, and encourages competition. This is far from new.
There are Japanese, German, and Korean owned car companies manufacturing in the US, British owned oil (BP bought Amoco and Arco), French Aerospace, Arab electronic, Taiwanese financial firms, Australian emu farms (haha), the list goes on and on. Foreign investment is critical to the US economy. 100's of $Billions per year are poured back into the US; bringing jobs, tax revenue, wealth and prosperity. In addition, foreign competition is critical to keeping consumer prices down in the US.
The Chinese government is Communist. A failed system of state owned industry. The only reason the Chinese economy has been growing recently is their transition to a capitalist economy with privately held businesses. The Chinese allow child labor in what amounts to slavery. Unfair trade practices (such as the Yuan being pegged to the Dollar) have led to a huge trade imbalance. If the reds want to purchase currently US held assets, they will have to make concessions. In capitalism all the cards are in play, not just money. Blocking a Chinese buy for Geopolitical reasons is not hypocritical nor does it fly in the face of capitalism.
Watch and learn 'son. All is not what it may seem on the surface.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 11:08:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What happened? Some elitist northern prick rude to one of those Canadian hotties? I'll kill him."""
It happens all the time. I've seen a group of about 30 american men from all range of ages scream at a girl on the other side of the metro rail: "heeeeeeeeeeere froggie...heeeeeeeeeere frog! hahahahahha!"
Just 1/100000 of all the examples I have.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-07-13 10:54:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 10:22:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
Americans are retarded too. Just yesterday, I had to deal with ANOTHER (will it ever stop?) one of these dumbfuck. Apparently, it's cool to disrespect women in America.
------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, just maybe, one day Americans will become as intellegent and open minded as you and your countrymen Caul. Until then, please continue to make broad offensive generalizations about us with vague references to behavior that bothers you (and is obviously only done by Americans) on posts that have very little to nothing to do with that topic.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-07-13 10:48:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 10:22:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
Americans are retarded too. Just yesterday, I had to deal with ANOTHER (will it ever stop?) one of these dumbfuck. Apparently, it's cool to disrespect women in America.
-------
What happened? Some elitist northern prick rude to one of those Canadian hotties? I'll kill him.
+1 to keep from saturating.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2005-07-13 10:47:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Fair enough of an argument, except for the fact that China is a threat to US national security, a leading oppressor of human rights, and a Communist nation. The same thing went down with Japan in the 80s - people got a bit nervous when the Japs started buying up a lot, but nobody stopped them. This is not hypocrisy, nor is it about business. It is about the tangled skein of politics, economics, and national security.
Would you want Iran buying up vital parts of your country's economy? North Korea? Syria?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 10:22:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Americans are retarded too. Just yesterday, I had to deal with ANOTHER (will it ever stop?) one of these dumbfuck. Apparently, it's cool to disrespect women in America.
Submitted by Wiggles (user info) at 2005-07-13 10:09:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Don't name me as a socialist. I'm not a socialist.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 08:54:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
*never
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-07-13 08:48:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate china. Let's all do!
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 08:44:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wasn't Trotsky banished, then found murdered with a pickaxe through his skull?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah. It was an ice pick.
I fuckin' love Russia. They just keep putting psycho's in charge. Russia is the lesson to us all that really we should neither centralise our power.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-07-13 08:37:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 07:06:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:51:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Williamson is actually Neo-Nazi disguised as a socialist - which is fair play, unless of course you are not part of 'ze mazter race'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer to think of him as Trotsky because he's a genuinly nice guy. Plus it winds him up something chronic.
------
Wasn't Trotsky banished, then found murdered with a pickaxe through his skull?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-13 08:36:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-07-13 07:04:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
With all the give-aways, subsidies, tax breaks, government bailoits, huge campaign contributions, softening of consumer and union laws, weak SEC, weak enforcement of corporate crimes, etc because corporations can buy politicians. I'd like to see somebody convince me that the U.S. is actually a capitalistic nation. I'd think capitalism would work if we actually practiced it.
---------------------------------
Durel's alters must have registered before him!
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-13 08:18:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 07:06:22 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:51:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Williamson is actually Neo-Nazi disguised as a socialist - which is fair play, unless of course you are not part of 'ze mazter race'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer to think of him as Trotsky because he's a genuinly nice guy. Plus it winds him up something chronic
-------------
except Trotsky was an actual Marxist, unlike Williamson who uses a socialist front to hide his real agenda....
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2005-07-13 07:48:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:47:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Big industries... whether they be Primary, Secondary or Tertiary industries, if it is deemed important enough to the nation to have in government control then they should be nationalised. I will still allow minor companies in these industries to make fortunes, but only to a certain extent.
I would never socialise agriculture... i may regulate it though. Trying to socialise agriculture will never work because it's not a centralised system.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
That's not very socialistic at all. Over here (Israel), the electric company and the water company are national corporations, just to name two; and hey - we're still considered Capitalistic.
Capitalism is still Capitalism exist even with some socialistic characteristics.
Incidentally, not to dissapoint you, but it doesn't work as well as you'd like to think.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-07-13 07:26:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Come on Williamson you are smarter than this.
Look at all the land and companies the Japanese have bought in the US in the last 30 years, has America been able to make even the slightest inroads there, would we be able to in China? The US learned its lesson, or at least I hope it did. It isn't a rejection of capatilism if you don't allow someone to buy your company if you are not allowed to buy thiers.
Nevermind the argument that Unocal could be considered a "strtegic" company, and that the loss of it to foreign nationals may already not be alowed under US tradition (if not laws, I haven't studied this for a while).
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 07:06:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:51:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Williamson is actually Neo-Nazi disguised as a socialist - which is fair play, unless of course you are not part of 'ze mazter race'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I prefer to think of him as Trotsky because he's a genuinly nice guy. Plus it winds him up something chronic.
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2005-07-13 07:04:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
With all the give-aways, subsidies, tax breaks, government bailoits, huge campaign contributions, softening of consumer and union laws, weak SEC, weak enforcement of corporate crimes, etc because corporations can buy politicians. I'd like to see somebody convince me that the U.S. is actually a capitalistic nation. I'd think capitalism would work if we actually practiced it.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:51:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Williamson is actually Neo-Nazi disguised as a socialist - which is fair play, unless of course you are not part of 'ze mazter race'
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:45:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fair play Mr Williamson, fair play. Just remember to take into account the free market and the effect on it of strong Government influence. Perhaps the Yukos case in Russia is an interesting case study maybe? Plus I'd like to see a full social model that fully harnesses the productive power of the people and the nation's existing assets and don't forget to mention how the nationalised companies will be structured (i.e who they will answer to specifically, perhaps some form of comitee?) and finally (for now at least) how the economy will remain robust during international trade.
Do all that and you might just convince me to cut my hair and start wearing pince-nez(sp).
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:43:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
no offence, but this post eats balls. its a poorly written, poorly concealed attempt to piss off the yanks, and create a big, stupid argument. you obviously have some idea of what youer talking about, why dont you rewrite this without being so blatantly heat-seeking, and give us something worthwhile to discuss?
though this will get most heated, so mission accomplished, i guess
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:39:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
your political system generates an overdose of national patriotism within the people of the country, which I'm not sure is very healthy for the future of the planet, especially given its previous failures. I think capitalism is the lesser of 2 evils here.
It would pretty pretty cool to have a national goverment owned car manufacturer, though - screw crumple zones, those fuckers would last forever.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:32:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:18:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:49:29 (#)
Ranking: 2
thats a very thin line, and seems to me to be unworkable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not even a thin line. Williamson who gets the hounour of 'deeming' companies for National control? It could work but only in a kind of fuck the people, let them common piss ants die in their hovels kind of way.
Seriously though you might want to distance yourself from the word socialist and just take up the sword of nationalism and brave the negative connotations of facsism and oppression that goes with it. I mean, you are a nationalist afterall and saying 'for the good of the people' will serve you just as well as saying 'for the good of society'.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
If I ever were to actually take up a sword in politics there's no way I'd go in with the word socialist on my forehead.
Altruist, maybe? I'll figure it out.
Oh and "Williamson who gets the hounour of 'deeming' companies for National control? It could work but only in a kind of fuck the people, let them common piss ants die in their hovels kind of way."
The only pissants I'd let die in their hovels are the multi-billionaires who I'd take the companies from... and if they had been good to the country and paid their taxes fairly (unlike 99% of major companies), I'd compensate them fairly too.
I need to get some shit done now and then sleep. Gotta get up early... *grumbles*
I'll read these responses when I can (probably 24 hours).
Oh, and Rad... let me check up on something in response to your query. I'll respond when i can.
Submitted by lordofduct (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:31:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Williamson, do YOU want to be dictator or something? All this "I'll make sure they pay there taxes... I wouldn't have agriculture nationalised...". You remind me of this kid I went to Highschool with, David MacNamera or something like that. Fuckin' nut case. Blew me away with his need to live in a Fascist state.
But meh,
I kinda actually agree with some of your things though. I believe in a moderate socialist state (as it is a very broad term). I believe in a state similar to that of Great Britain. My main reason for this, SOCIALIZED HEALTH! and they actually take care of their civil service workers. I.E. TEACHERS!!!!
Actually I happen to want to be a teacher (Not English, oh dear not English. I am a Math major).
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:20:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh look, a nerd convention.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:18:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:49:29 (#)
Ranking: 2
thats a very thin line, and seems to me to be unworkable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not even a thin line. Williamson who gets the hounour of 'deeming' companies for National control? It could work but only in a kind of fuck the people, let them common piss ants die in their hovels kind of way.
Seriously though you might want to distance yourself from the word socialist and just take up the sword of nationalism and brave the negative connotations of facsism and oppression that goes with it. I mean, you are a nationalist afterall and saying 'for the good of the people' will serve you just as well as saying 'for the good of society'.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:14:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I dont know vurry much about ecunomies und ull thut.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:13:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
PLEASE SHOW ME A WORKING SOCIALIST SYSTEM OF GEVERNMENT WITH TAX RELIEF?
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:13:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh, and the line is pretty thin, yeah.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:10:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:49:29 (#)
Ranking: 2
thats a very thin line, and seems to me to be unworkable.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-
There's really not much difference between our two systems except in yours, a select few make money from owning assets and make decisions based on their own personal profit, while evading taxes; and in mine the government gets the dividends, makes decisions based on what's best for the nation and all profit (not just taxes on profit) go towards government reserves, which are spent on public services.
And, more corporate income for the government means the less they'll need to be dependant on your taxes, Rad. Which may mean tax breaks for workers like you.
Submitted by Sphagnum (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:10:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Heatwhore! I'm going to start calling you Cindy if you keep this up.
ni hao ma indeed!
tai chien.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:06:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah, I see. Edit mode. It isn't finished.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:04:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oi, why'd you sign off? The path to the mountains isn't working, it's a dead end.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 06:02:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:59:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Willy, I think you're very smart. I applaud that.
==-=--=-=-=
Awwwe, thanks hun.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:59:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Willy, I think you're very smart. I applaud that.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Christ, we've been bought out by the Saudis, China, and Japan for years.
The East Indians, Tiawan, and South Korea are the up and comers.
The rest of the 'yet to be felt' impacts to our(US) economy are coming from Chile,Brazil
and Mexico.
Yes, old news for most older people, is quite correct.
You young'ns will certainly feel the effect in the years to come.
Good luck with that.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:49:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That is precisely communism and extremely unworkable.
Nationalise McDonalds?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==--=
I wouldn't see a point in nationalising a food company. Though, I'd make bloody sure they paid their taxes.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:49:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
thats a very thin line, and seems to me to be unworkable.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:47:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:29:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
One question: You define yourself as a socialist, but that's a pretty broad term. Do you support government ownership of ALL industry, or just of key industries?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==--===-=
Big industries... whether they be Primary, Secondary or Tertiary industries, if it is deemed important enough to the nation to have in government control then they should be nationalised. I will still allow minor companies in these industries to make fortunes, but only to a certain extent.
I would never socialise agriculture... i may regulate it though. Trying to socialise agriculture will never work because it's not a centralised system.
Now, the meaning of socialism has changed over the years quite a lot. Just like the definition of the word liberal has almost completely backflipped over a hundred years...
The commonly accepted and used definition of communism is complete state-ownership of everything. It's about ideological equality amongst people, while socialism is more about nationalising selected companies from certain industries, to ensure greater good to the nation as a whole. Equality between rich and poor is often a consequence, and not the motivation of socialism.
If equality is the motivation, it's communism.
If equality is simply the consequence it's socialism.
That's where I, and many others, draw the line between socialism and communism. And I'm on the socialist side of that line.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:45:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:22:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:12:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
functioning* free economy not a function free economy.
was typing that whilst on the phone.
and williamson you continually mistake socialism for communism, i have refrained from arguing with you about this becasue you seem so illinformed that I thought you were joking at first.
Kids.
-=-=-=-==-===--=-
You think i''d like to run a communist state? Is that what you're saying?
Listen, if things were done my way, I'd still have hungry and I'd still have millionairres. People with guaranteed food on the table or a roof over their head won't work, and people who strive for money, won't work unless they know they can make fortunes from doing so.
I just want major industries, the big multi-billion corporations to become nationalised.
Tell me how that's communism. """
That is precisely communism and extremely unworkable.
Nationalise McDonalds?
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:33:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
[cue thorpe and williamson rubbing their hands together..]
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:33:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:32:35 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm gonna make an unsolicited bid on Rad's arse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you going to do with it? A family spit roast?
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:33:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Then sell it to teh highest bidder.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:32:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes.
Where do you draw the line exactly?
When does the gov'ment get to take a company over?
When It reaches a certain value?
Or should the gov'ment control key areas, like energy and what not?
What defines a company as an energy company, and what does not?
HOW CAN YOU DRAW LINES?
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:32:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm gonna make an unsolicited bid on Rad's arse.
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:29:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
One question: You define yourself as a socialist, but that's a pretty broad term. Do you support government ownership of ALL industry, or just of key industries?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:29:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:25:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
thats communism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's right I'm afraid. Money is power, literaly. Nationalising the big corps takes them off the freemarket and (theoretically) puts the money directly under government control.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:25:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
thats communism
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:22:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:12:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
functioning* free economy not a function free economy.
was typing that whilst on the phone.
and williamson you continually mistake socialism for communism, i have refrained from arguing with you about this becasue you seem so illinformed that I thought you were joking at first.
Kids.
-=-=-=-==-===--=-
You think i''d like to run a communist state? Is that what you're saying?
Listen, if things were done my way, I'd still have hungry and I'd still have millionairres. People with guaranteed food on the table or a roof over their head won't work, and people who strive for money, won't work unless they know they can make fortunes from doing so.
I just want major industries, the big multi-billion corporations to become nationalised.
Tell me how that's communism.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:19:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love ya, even if you are an aussie. Go all blacks whooo.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:16:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No! Bad nationalist, bad!
You see mate, the situation is (remarkably) about more than just money. China is, of course, trying to take advantage of the US 'War on Terror' and make many gains whilst the US' attention is elsewhere. On that same token the US cannot 'engage' China economically whilst there is still such a large situation in the middle east. So to combat Chinas' expansion into US markets they have imposed tariffs (on the Chinese textile imports for example) to limit their assault, but the US have also made some lucrative deals out of the situation (sic: cheap imports). Now that is where everything gets a little interesting.
What this wheeling and dealing has created is a capitalist philosophy in Beijing. I am happy to bet top dollar that Beijing see this as a means to an end but the hardcore socialists over there are seeing the benefit of a powerful economy. People are living a little better, diplomatic overtures are recieved far more readily from other nations and it provides a way for China to strike at their enemies in a clean, internationaly acceptable way. Now the more old school types in Beijing fear that this gilded path is too seductive and that China will become interdependant on other nations, just like European nations, Russia, the US, etc...
They are right as well. As China becomes more interdependant the old school will lash out with aggressive actions like this takeover but the thing with economics is that it's really weird. Money moves in all sorts of funny ways and there are all sorts of odd things that nations and corporations can do that are, quite frankly, beyond my understanding. Suffice is to say that the US has been at this game far longer than the Chinese and despit China's bullish strategy I am confident that the money men in the US will not only be able to fend of this charge but turn it to their advantage as China throws it's weight around in a desperate scrabble for stuff.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:15:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Apollo I'm in a union as a teacher and I promise we still hold the authorities to Ransom. They are restructuring the jobs that teachers do, so an admin person has to do loads of my job from January. They still have to pay me to do it for 3 years though.
NHS? pah. See my post.
Submitted by Clawsss (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:13:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:00:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't much give a flying fuck in a wetsuit.
I have my civil service job.
As long as they keep reducing my taxes, I really couldn't care who was running shit.
JUST STAY OUT OF MY MONEY AND MY HOUSE AND MY LIFE *
--------------
*Yeah, we're fucked.
I'm 25, and i have yet to see how the fuck this is a free country. Can't smoke pot, can't pass assholes on the right, can't buy beer on sunday.
Just had a nephew squeak out of 30 years for selling 3 ounces of weed. He's 18. It was his first offense.
I'm an American though. I have the blood of multiple cultures on this planet running throug my veines, and i cherish it. I may not have shit for culture, but atleast i can say "I'm an American." Doesn't mean much anymore but, with society today, you take what you can get.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:12:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
functioning* free economy not a function free economy.
was typing that whilst on the phone.
and williamson you continually mistake socialism for communism, i have refrained from arguing with you about this becasue you seem so illinformed that I thought you were joking at first.
Kids.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:10:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the big GLARINGLY OBVIOUS POINT that you seem to miss Williamson my boy is that there is a MIDDLE GROUND.
Yes coporations should be free to be bought by whoever - that is what a stock market is all about, certain key organisations should however remain nationalised.
Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world, not bad for a teeny, tiny nation. Why is that? Becasue we went through some very difficult times in the late seventies, early eighties that we are reaping the benefits of now. Our huge BLOATED state run utilities were on strik every five minutes, we had manufacturing plants (automotive mostly) being propped up by state subsidy, the three day week, no power after 10pm, and a huge budget defecit. Until Thatcher and her government took on and broke the near communist unions.
The french and germans once scornful of the state of our nation are now desperately trying to copy us. They are cripple with ludicrous pension entitlements they can't pay, over 50% of people in France work for the government, that is unsustainable.
Howver key industries like transport and helath should of course be nationalised companies.
Middle ground.
It is possible to have a function free economy and good social benefits.
I'm not just saying this because I am British (I am not one for flag waving as you all know) but Britain really does have the best balance at the moment, free market economy balanced with decent health and social benefits. Not the each for themselves attitude of the US (trillion dollar defence budget but no universal healthcare? how your people haven't revolted I know not) but nor is it the 35 hour working week of France.
Balance.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:07:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
and I forgot... call Brass
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:05:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:01:51 (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, noes! It's like an episode of The Twilight Zone...
Uh, you may want to consider linking another source, just for backup. You're taking a chance referencing Fox News.
-=-==--=-=-=-
Yeah, true.... Oh well.
I picked Fox because, being the most flag-wavin', they'd probably have the most on this story.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:01:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, noes! It's like an episode of The Twilight Zone...
Uh, you may want to consider linking another source, just for backup. You're taking a chance referencing Fox News.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:00:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't much give a flying fuck in a wetsuit.
I have my civil service job.
As long as they keep reducing my taxes, I really couldn't care who was running shit.
JUST STAY OUT OF MY MONEY AND MY HOUSE AND MY LIFE
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-13 05:00:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1188906,00.html
Talking of news- 130 people died in a train crash, but it doesn't matter because they weren't white?
Submitted by Fabit (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:59:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Genius - a brilliant master piece of uber............but...........
When slating the yanks focus less on the "douche bag" side of things and more on the "ass grabbing, jockstrap wearing - Dick anuss of America"
They like that. It gets them all wet.
El Fabit O
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:58:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But the nipps aren't about to takeover Rasta. The Chinese will have the ability to really do whatever they want in the future... and considering your not-so-friendly relationship with them... well, you're gonna be feeling the impacts of Chinese takeovers.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:55:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
On what?
I haven't paid any attention to the news since last year.
What's this about China taking over?
Next you'll tell me England got attacked by terrah-ists
pfft...
Submitted by Rasta (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:55:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Is this guy serious? Japan has owned much of our debt and alot of our property for decades. And that society is closed and completely controls its markets. See. They can get in our markets but we can't get in theirs.
China has similar issues. Check it out.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:54:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah, the douchebags....
That explains it.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:53:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:51:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
-=-=-=-=-=
My first -2 from Rad in a while...
but what hurts me most is the No Comment....
Really, i want to know your capitalist ideas on this.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:52:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And I have been thinking about National Socialism lately.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:52:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
THAT WAS FOR LUMPING ME IN WITH THOSE OTHER DOUCHE BAGS
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:51:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Damn straight. Though China's "economy" is... different. From most other things. I'm not going to start down that road.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-07-13 04:49:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Here is a +2 for you Williamson. The Americans hate stuff like this, especially when you get all aggro about it all.