"and your government when it deserves it."
- - Twain's time would probably have been about the last vestiges of any governance worthy of our respect. Certainly not much in the last 100.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Great quote, Francois. You have to love Mark Twain.

The superstrong faith in American exceptionalism is very embarrassing. Don't get me wrong, I love my country, but I also recognize that France is a beautiful land with people who truly know (with more clarity than any American can know) what war is like at home.

We are buffered by two large oceans and we have used this essentially since our birth as a nation as a platform from which to condescend to other nations about how they should run their business.

Just look at the casualty numbers/population numbers between nations in World War II and make the decision on who is qualified to comment on war from that.

Great perspective SOUP. I agree with you, there's a difference between going to another country and fight a war and having one in your own backyard. All my parents remember from their early childhood (dad was born in 38 and mom in 41) is the sirens going off, getting he prepacked suitcase and running into the bunker and when they came out not knowing what was left of their town.

Mark Twain truely said some profound and true things.

---

Wilfried Heinle

Artificial Intelligence can never beat natural stupidity.

and to be honest, the french gov. isn't much better right now...it's in place only because that was Chirac or Le Pen and the lesser evil was far less of an evil than Le Pen...

there is a war in Iraq?

truly sad...we have lots of soldiers from Fort Bliss out there...some will not come back...

let's face it....the war in Iraq is not 'media-fashionable' anymore...

Chirac is definitely the better of the worse..after all Le Pen was known to be extremely nationalistic/ extreme right wing . At times where Europe is moving closer together, all of Europe can be glad for Chirac to have won the last elections. Imagine Berlusconi for Italy and Le Pen for France...Ohhh NO!

---

---------------
If you ever want to know what an "eggman" is, then simply click here....http://www.emu5.de

or whoever the guy in Austria is...(the one in Klagenfurt...can hear the military boots from here...)

Chirac was definitely a better choice than le Pen...but not a good choice nonetheless...

American patriotism is standing up for liberty and individual rights, even when it isn't fashionable. I prefer Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry to Mark Twain.

I love and support my country even when it doesn't deserve it. Why? Because I know it's better than the other choices. Why else would so many be dying (literally) to come to America and become Americans?

You know this better than most, Francois.

---

Sean

I'm a patriot and love America, but not everyone is dying to get here, nor are those who make it necessarily all staying. The most recent emmigration data compiled from the INS estimates that each year 220,00 foreign born persons leave the country and 48,000 US born Americans leave as well. Between 1990 and 1999, it was estimated that for every 100 immigrants allowed into the US, about 30 decided to return home. these numbers are not people being deported or kicked out or extradited, just those who decide the US isn't for them.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yes, there are MANY other choices. I didn't say that EVERYONE want's to live here.

Canada is a Socialist society, right? As with all Socialist societies, they all think they are right about everything for everyone. They're all the same. That's what's wrong with Socialism. John Kerry is a Liberal Democrat aka Socialist. That's why most citizens of other Socialist countries like him. He speaks the language of Socialism.

I really don't care how America is viewed in the eyes of the world's Socialist countries and neither does George Bush. That makes them inconsequential and that's why they're pissed. GB and Washington are the best friends you can have and the worst enemies.

What do Canadians have to do with American politics? They can't vote for Kerry, so what difference does it make. Why are they more concerned about America than Canada, unless they realize that America means more to the world than Canada does. That could be why they're pissed.

Don't you think Canadians would get a little pissed if Americans started telling them their Prime Minister REALLY SUCKED! Who am I to tell Canadians anything related to their government. I can't vote in their elections. How arrogant it is for those Canadians to think they are/know better than this American administration.

---

Sean

"Don't you think Canadians would get a little pissed if Americans started telling them their Prime Minister REALLY SUCKED! Who am I to tell Canadians anything related to their government. I can't vote in their elections. How arrogant it is for those Canadians to think they are/know better than this American administration"

We substitue our judgment for that of other countries' citizens all the time. Who are we to criticize the Spanish Govt or the N. Korean Govt. or the Cubans Govt.? The Canadians are our neighbors and allies, so they have a vested interest in who our leaders are and what their polices are. Why wouldn't they express their disagreements with our President?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

you think I'd die to come to the US???
you're joking right?

How do you know it's better than other choices? in how many countries have you lived except in the US?

To tell you the truth, this country here (the US) is really dying to get people with degrees in the relevant fields, but is not doing ANYTHING at all to help...still have to go through the same crap. Whereas Canada will accept someone like me very easily...and if Bush goes through and changes the immigration laws according to his plan, it's gonna get such a pain in the ass to get permanent residence, that I would very likely leave to Canada where they don't just tell you they need you, they show it too...

I think Cuba and N Korea are bad examples - the people there don't have a lot of say in their national politics or in choosing their national leader...

---

_______________________________________________

"I think Cuba and N Korea are bad examples - the people there don't have a lot of say in their national politics or in choosing their national leader... "

Regardless, we stick our noses in how plenty of countries run their business, including those with dictators, and those with elected govts. My point was that the Canadians have as much right to be vocal about our goernmental shortcomings as we have to bitch about how the French do business or the Mexicans or the Germans, or anyone else for that matter. In a world that is getting smaller every day, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have an opinion about your neighbors.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Do you have any idea what socialism is? Or did you see five seconds of a history channel segment on Communism and suddenly believe every country but the good ol' USofA is run by Stalins in training. Communism is a more radical form of socialism, just like the KKK and "Moral Majority" is a more radical form of the Republican party. Since Bush is a Republican does that mean we are going to revert to segregation, or even slavery? You need to get a clue instead of dismissing every idea from another country as socialist and therefore moot. Socialism is designed with the majority in mind rather then the social elite, funny I thought thats what democracy was for...once.

"Socialism is designed with the majority in mind rather then the social elite"

Socialism is about equality. For everyone, all the time, under all circumstances with the government as the enforcer of what is good for you and me and our neighbors.

Liberty is about me as an individual to do whatever I want, whenever I want, to make my own decisions in life and either rejoice or suffer as a result of those decisions.

I will take liberty over equality any day.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

"Socialism is about equality. For everyone, all the time, under all circumstances with the government as the enforcer of what is good for you and me and our neighbors."

misconception...because one of the key phrases of socialism is "everyone according to its needs" (meaning, all should be split equally) when most people forget the second part of the sentence
"and according to its merit"

France had a socialist gov. (despite what many think they know here, Chirac's gov. is not socialist, it's plain right, just clueless once more) and I can guarantee you that under Mitterrand, if you didn't do shit, you wouldn't get anything at all.

There are the same you have here, if you work a lot, in a field that pays well, you will make a lot of money when a janitor is not making much at all...

My understanding about socialism is that everyone contributes to the collective what they can, so the wealthy give more than the peasant, and each get's back from the collective both what they need and what they deserve. The idea is not that everyone gets the same share of the resources, but that nobody gets left behind by the collective if they are willing to contribute. The idea is to encourage everyone to contribute whatever they can, by making sure they get something back in return.

I could be wrong about this, it's been awhile since I did much reading on the subject.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

that's the idea indeed...so of course some use the system, but it's the same thing here too...

your representation is very close to what socialism is in Euro countries (and not what some here have portrayed...)

You have socialized medecine (for everyone, regardless of income), University is FREE except about 150 euros of tuition per year and accessible by anyone who has passed the baccalaureat (national exam).

I am not saying that everything is great (far from this...for instance many gov. jobs are a shame...) but there are some very good ideas...

I think there isn't one single system that works. There are some huge advantages to capitalism, and some for socialism, and only if you pick and choose and get the right mix can you do it right. It's the balanace that is difficult.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

dude, you sound like Aristotle :-)

I love and support my country even when it doesn't deserve it. Why? Because I know it's better than the other choices.

Well now, there's a concept I can get behind: "I love my country, it's the lesser of evils!"

Good grief, have we come to this?

ps- How's your research into the origins of capitalism going, haystack?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yeah you think socialism = communism, it doesn't. Read some other posts on here.

Haystack,

You typify the kind of jingoistic, ignorant redneck that gives the USA a bad name. I love America; it has produced some of the greatest writers, thinkers, and philanthropists in the last two hundred years. What a shame that you have such a mindless, parochial dimwit in charge.

As a leader of any other country Bush wouild merely be a laughing stock. As the the President of the USA he is dangerous.

The world needs John Kerry to rectify the pitiful state of American foreign policy and change course from unilateral recklessness.

African

You may be on to something in that we need an alternative leader in this country. Unfortunately I feel like neither choices are good one's. Bush, while his public persona gives one the impression of ineptness, has a very specific agenda. Fortunately, he's transparent enough so that most people can see through what he is trying to accomplish. Kerry on the otherhand, can be perceived as whimsical. However, when you look deeper, his agenda is to the far left of our political spectrum.

So where does that leave us average americans? Basically with the choice of picking the lesser of two evils. I am limited in our election process to one or the other. Our two party system has created this. For me, the optimal choice is John McCain, but our political process keeps him in his place because the system supports the incumbent. I'm not agonizing over this, but I believe the process has not developed into one that puts the best people on the ticket. We are misguided by advertising agencies creating hyperbole. The sad thing is that many americans have become too lazy to seek the truth for themselves. Its campaign financing that is forcing the decision on who to vote for down the throat of america. Herein lies where we need to make a change.

I for one would like to see campaign finance reform.

I would like to see a more robust multi party system, even a parliamentary system would be better.

I would like to see our country behave as something other than the world political and military bully.

I don't want to be subjected to one persons relgious agenda.....I might not believe what you do.

I want a nationalized health care system. A key reason my healthcare costs are going up is because the uninsured cannot pay. Who do you think ends up paying?

This is just a short list of my beefs with my country that I love. I'm merely exercizing my right of free speech here. Call me unpatriotic if you want, but,

"I really don't care how America is viewed in the eyes of the world's Socialist countries and neither does George Bush. That makes them inconsequential and that's why they're pissed. GB and Washington are the best friends you can have and the worst enemies."

America is a Socialist country. If you think that we are capitalists, you need to go back and read some more. Welfare, Medicaid and Social Security do not exist in Capitalism. Capitalism is based on the individual living within a group and the governments only purpose protect the individual rights.

>I'm a patriot and love America, but not everyone is dying to get here, nor are those who make it necessarily all staying. The most recent emmigration data >compiled from the INS estimates that each year 220,00 foreign born persons leave the country and 48,000 US born Americans leave as well. Between 1990 and >1999, it was estimated that for every 100 immigrants allowed into the US, about 30 decided to return home. these numbers are not people being deported or >kicked out or extradited, just those who decide the US isn't for them.

OK, and the rest of the numbers: over 1,000,000 immigrants come into the US every year.

I agree with you. Give me liberty to decide for myself what is best. I spent some time getting to know some Swedes over the past years and even spent some time in Sweden. I didn't like at all what I saw. The people had learned to abuse the system. Not to say others don't also abuse the system in the US also. I couldn't believe the government could tell you how long you could take off for maternity leave. They all think it's terrible that in the US we don't get paid maternity leave. I had to point out to some friends that for me I want the choice to go back to work or not. Not you have to go back in a year. I'll get shot down for this becuase someone will say in the US they have to go back to work to afford to live. That's not 100% true. SOme choose to go back to work to have what the Jones' have.

You should have seen how they were milking the "free" educational system. Living in top apartments in Gothenburg. I saw such apathy from the young people I came in contact with. It wasn't uncommon to see hear that a 30 year old was just now getting their first job. The work ethic I know was something I didn't see at all. Though everyone was nice as a whole I just knew it wouldn't be a place or system I could ever live in.

I'll take the US and my rights any time. Socialism scares me. I think it moves so many people to mediocrity. The idea of I'm taken care of so why should I try to improve anything.

And about immigrants, I live in the middle of no where NC. I have a neighbor for Canada. Everyone but her parents in her family lives in the US. My other neighbors are from Pakistan. I work with a Scotsman who says he will never go back. There are no jobs and no way to succeed in his country. So from this view point it sure does look like some immigrants are liking what they find in the "terrible" US full of Bush lovers that the whole world hates because we are holier than thou thinking we have the best county in the world. hehe!

You are right, we are not pure Capitalist. We are modified capitalist, but we are very far from socialist. If we were socialist utilities and corporations such as cable, telephone, oil refineries, all medicine, most major research, agribusiness, automakers, and the airlines (to name a few of the major industries) would be held nationally.

To your list of "socialist" programs supported by our multinationals I would add corporate/agricultural/military industrial complex tax and production subsidies which cost more than welfare, medicare, and social security.

Ironically, our multinational drug companies love medicaid because they are able to rape the government in medicine costs. So in this case I suspect that the poor and elderly might be better off if we did have a true free market because then we would be allowed to go to the truly cheapest cost, instead of the way most get their uninsured meds now, over assorted borders.

Yeah we are not really Socialist per se but we are not really capitalist or even modified capitalist either (at least not if you look at the original definitions of capitalism. We are our own "ism" that is a melting pot of ideologies. We just like to use the word Capitalism because an individual can rise from dirt poor to filthy rich.

we are not really capitalist or even modified capitalist either (at least not if you look at the original definitions of capitalism.

We are capitalist. What "original" definition of the term are you using?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Adam Smith.

Expound please, for those of us who haven't read "Wealth of Nations" since high school.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

1) No worker unions

2) No Monopolies

3) If you do not work, you do not get paid

4) Government collects taxes only to protect individual liberties

5) Government does not attempt to influence how private individuals or businesses allocate their savings

6) Economic planning is done at an individual level, not a national level.

7) Business market composed of small buyers and sellers.

These are some of his basic points. Note that I am not necessarily saying that we have a poor Economic System, just that it is not really Capitalist. We, along with most of the world, have a sytem that contains bits and pieces of many different philosophies.

We, along with most of the world, have a sytem that contains bits and pieces of many different philosophies. If you're just saying we don't have pure, unadulterated capitalism, then you're right. But our system is, in the main, capitalist.

Most of the points you lay out are coincidental the the real question- what is capitalism?

It's an economic system distinguished most clearly by uncontrolled competition.

Though point seven- "Business market composed of small buyers and sellers"- is more than a little ironic, since capitalism can never result in such a situation. It will always result in BIG SELLERS.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Most of the points you lay out are coincidental the the real question- what is capitalism?

The points above are part of the basis for capitalism. According to Smith, caitalism is individuals bettering themselves which in turn betters society.

It's an economic system distinguished most clearly by uncontrolled competition.

No, actually that is only part of it. It is a system where individuals are the basis for the competition. Do you think that we have uncontrolled competition for individuals?Though point seven- "Business market composed of small buyers and sellers"- is more than a little ironic, since capitalism can never result in such a situation. It will always result in BIG SELLERS.

Not my ideas. It is the basis of capitalism, a large group of small sellers that are individually owned and the owner is involved in the everyday operation of the business. There was no provision for big business, in fact it was looked down upon.

Apologies in advance if this doesn't apply to you, JaC, but I think some people are under the mistaken impression that Adam Smith invented capitalism.

It is the basis of capitalism, a large group of small sellers that are individually owned and the owner is involved in the everyday operation of the business. There was no provision for big business, in fact it was looked down upon.

No, the basis of capitalism is not merely the private ownership of business. The basis is the relatively unrestrained ability of those businesses to compete with each other. Which is why capitalism necessarily leads to fewer and fewer small businesses, and more and more huge businesses. It's inevitable under the conditions established by capitalism.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Smith didn't invent it but many of his ideas form the basis of it.

"The basis is the relatively unrestrained ability of those businesses to compete with each other."

Big Business squashes fair competition and that is why it was looked down upon. Can small businesses compete with Microsoft, Ford, IBM or UPS? No way, they don't have a chance. Small businesses succeed because they fill a niche that big business either overlooks or doesn't care about. Maybe Capitalism falls in on itself, who knows. What I do know is that as businesses get bigger there is less competition between them and that moves us further from the roots of Capitalism.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
visit the funniest german-speaking triathlon community:
http://www.emu5.de
even available in English now:
http://www.emu5.de/en_index.htm

Smith didn't invent it but many of his ideas form the basis of it.

No, Smith's misapprehesions have about it have misled generations.

Big Business squashes fair competition and that is why it was looked down upon.

It does, but Big Business is the inevitable result of not restraining competition. We don't have fair trade with capitalism, we have free trade. There's a big difference.

What I do know is that as businesses get bigger there is less competition between them and that moves us further from the roots of Capitalism.

No, it moves us further from the results promised by advocates of capitalism. The real roots of capitalism lie with economic concerns way way back around the time of the Reformation skirting rules intended to maintain the fair trade you mention.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

We don't have fair trade with capitalism, we have free trade. There's a big difference.

There is no difference at all, both should mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete.

How is it fair or free when the government steps in and controls or aids big business?

Some Examples:
Bush put tariffs on steel so that US companies can compete, same type of situation occurred with Harley Davidson(well before Bush). The government was protecting them from outside competition, is that a good reason?

How do you fit government subsidies into "free" trade? Tax abatements?

How about Government regulated "monopolies"(i.e utilities)?

Is it free trade when the goverment sues Microsoft because they bundled Internet Explorer with Windows?

Bankruptcy protection through the courts allowing failed businesses to stay open.



In Capitalism, none of this occurs. Capitalism is based on individual liberties and it is the goverments job to protect our liberties. Are they?

There is no difference at all, both should mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete.

No, because under free trade the advantages of Big Business are allowed to run unchecked.

In Capitalism, none of this occurs. Capitalism is based on individual liberties and it is the goverments job to protect our liberties. Are they? How do you think the government can protect our liberties by not getting involved, legally, in an area of activity? How do you think our economic liberties are protected if government doesn't regulate big business?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"No, because under free trade the advantages of Big Business are allowed to run unchecked."

"How do you think the government can protect our liberties by not getting involved, legally, in an area of activity? How do you think our economic liberties are protected if government doesn't regulate big business?"

These two answers completely contradict each other. Answer 1: Big Business should be allowed to run unchecked Answer 2: We have to check them or they will stomp on our liberties.

Fair does not mean that everyone wins but it does mean that they are allowed to compete. Government regulated monopolies suppress anyone else from competing in markets. Why do you think they call it deregulation when they let you pick your electric company?

It's not that government is protecting our liberties at all, they are deliberately aiding businesses and helping them to compete when they are failing on their own. According to you, capitalism is letting them die and another company grows by taking the dead companies market share. This is how we get big business, the winner gets bigger and the loser shuts it doors.

These two answers completely contradict each other. Answer 1: Big Business should be allowed to run unchecked Answer 2: We have to check them or they will stomp on our liberties.

I'm not advocating the first statement. I am not in favor of "free" trade.

Under capitalism as a theory, and largely in practice, big business is allowed to run unchecked. It's a bad thing.


Government regulated monopolies suppress anyone else from competing in markets. I don't know where you get the idea that I support monopolies, whether they be government regulated or the result of market forces.

According to you, capitalism is letting them die and another company grows by taking the dead companies market share. This is how we get big business, the winner gets bigger and the loser shuts it doors. According to me, capitalism, by and large, is letting the big companies kill the smaller ones.

This is how we get big business, the winner gets bigger and the loser shuts it doors. Yes.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

your just arguing for the sake of arguing now :)

Where is Cousin Elwood? I am sure he's got something to say here!

C-O-U-S-I-N E-L-W-O-O-D ....where are you?

---

---------------
If you ever want to know what an "eggman" is, then simply click here....http://www.emu5.de

your just arguing for the sake of arguing now :)

Am not!

Seriously, I wasn't. I was trying, as always, to point out the reasons why capitalism is not the benevolent system people so often believe it to be.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I only said that we aren't Captalists if you look at the historical definition. If you would have said this first we could have agreed earlier.