Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !

John Larkin wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 11:35:13 +0200, David Brown
<david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



There's no difference. Any company makes all the profit it can. If
somebody offered you $50 for your old rusty VW, and somebody else
offered you $12,000, which offer would you accept?

I wouldn't accept either.

Allow me to be skeptical here. You'd keep a rusty VW you don't want
because neither offer is fair?


No, assuming I did not want the car, I'd want to figure out a sensible price. The $50 is easily rejected. When offered $12,000, people's responses would vary from "you must know something I don't" to "don't be silly, it's not worth that much".

I see no reason for businesses to have any different attitude - money is a necessary evil, not an end in itself. If money were the only important factor, there is no point in a small company trying to produce electronics - they could probably make higher profit margins running a porn site.

"Money" is not the same thing as "profit." At present, my company
needs a new reflow oven, a thermal imager, a good RF signal generator,
and we need to paint the roof, to reduce solar absorption and energy
use. Once we acquire these things, the IRS and the state of California
both consider them to be "profit" and both tax us accordingly. Well,
maybe we can expense the paint.


I'd have thought most of these were running expenses, along with other investments in your company - profit is what's left after these are paid for. I have no problems about making money that is of use to your company, nor of making a profit - I only take issue at the idea of overcharging customers with the aim of producing greater profit for shareholders or top company officials.

Profit is the way any company grows. It's what lets us design dynamite
electronics and create good jobs. And there's too many people in the
porn business already; I doubt it's easy to make money that way any
more.

I don't even agree that "money is a necessary evil." Money is what
makes our societies work, and is of enormous social benefit because it
quantizes value and makes value easily transportable over long
distances. Societies that have tried to do without money (barter
economies, or real communism, for example) have been pits of poverty
and misery.


All you have shown here is that money is necessary, and I agree with that. Money is not a problem in itself - it is the pursuit of money above all else that I object to. Money is a lubricant that makes the human world go round - it gives access to things we want or need, and lets me eat pizza instead of code printouts. But when we aim for money as an end in itself, instead of other things in life (some of which are free, others are attained through money), then we have lost our way. After all, is lubricant itself a great thing, or is it the activities made better and easier through its use that are the main attraction?


If an oil company increases prices during shortages (I don't think there actually *were* shortages after the hurricanes - but lets assume there were), then that's one way to control demand and avoid running out. What matters is the company's attitude, and what is done with the money. When you take that money and invest it (such as re-building and improving damaged infrastructure), that's fine - when you gloat over your profits and give bonuses to your shareholders and top company employees, that's profiteering.


Your position is bad economics hence bad morality. A capitalist,
profit-oriented economy has proven to be the besy way out of poverty.
You and I luxuriate in the bounty of such an economy and can afford to
scorn it for sport if it pleases us. But the dirt-floor poor of the
world haven't that luxury... they will remain poor until they get more
productive, and the surest path to productivity is to own businesses
that make real profits and can afford to grow.


All things in moderation - that's all I'm really saying. Profits are fine - "excessive" profits are not. As you have said, economies that are not capitalist based are not nearly as successful or happy for their people (although they can as good or better in some ways - compare Cuba's health system with the USA's). But too much capitalism and profit orientation is bad too - simply compare the poverty rates in the USA and most European countries for examples. Norway may not be a good example (you can argue that oil makes too big a difference), but compare life in Sweden with that in the USA. There can be little doubt that the USA is far more capitalist, while Sweden is more socialist, and there can be little doubt that the USA has a vastly greater poverty problem than Sweden. For the top layers in society, the American system is perhaps better, but for the bottom layers, the Swedish system is best - and the top layers have nothing to complain about there either.

Obviously you can't attribute every aspect of a country or its people's way of life to economics, and there are plenty of other reasons why you think the USA is the best country to live in, while it bears no attraction whatsoever to me, but you must admit there is a pattern here - of all the western democracies, the USA has the most capitalist and money-oriented, and also suffers the worst from poverty and related issues such as health care for the masses.

It's still doing some good, and I'd hate to try a quantitative analysis even if it were possible, but the "bad behaviour" currently far outshines the good in the eyes of the world. You can argue whether Bush is good for the USA or not, and you can even argue that you think he is doing a good job for the rest of the world, but there is no doubt that the majority of the rest of the world think the USA is the world's biggest bully and bad guy.

How do you define the "eyes of the world"? Europe? The Muslim
countries? The UN?

Europe: isolationalist, elitist, disengaged, jealous, still somewhat
anti-semitic, still ambivalent about WWII and the Cold War; still have
issues to work out.


Elitist and disengaged I can somewhat agree with - but jealous? Of whom - the USA? That is perhaps true of some people Tony Blair would like nothing better than to be crowned president of the UK, and there are daydreamers who think if the UK were more like the USA, they could be the next Bill Gates. And obviously there are plenty of individuals who emigrate to the USA in the hope of starting a new and better life. But for the most part, people in Europe much prefer life here.

As for anti-sematism - sure, there is some, but the vast majority of condemnation of Isreal's recent actions is nothing more than that - a condemnation of a state's excessive force. In the eyes of Europeans, there is one powerful state using its military and economic strength to oppress a poorer neighbour, while that neighbour uses terrorist tactics against it. Religion doesn't enter into it - they are both in the wrong.


Muslims: strong religious bias, even towards tyrants and terrorists;
jealous of the West in general, ambivalent about lots of things, like
sex and business and science and tolerance.


Modern republicans are doing their best to drag the USA back to the dark ages regarding sex, science and tolerance.

UN: despots and lunatics have equal voting rights as democratic
countries; as an organization, deeply immoral and corrupt.


If the USA were to make an effort in the UN rather than alternately trying to condemn it, dominate it, disband it or plead with it, then maybe it would be a lot better. Perhaps if the USA actually listened to what other countries had to say, rather than telling them what to say, the world would be a safer place.

It's interesting that neither China, India, nor Japan is very critical
of the US role in the world, and they make up about 40% of the
planet's population. I think, underneath the ritual communist
rhetoric, that the Chinese rather like us. The ones that I meet sure
seem to.


So you disregard the opinions of the western world (your allies, in case you'd forgotten), the Muslim world (your current favourite enemy), Africa and Russia (forgotten entirely), and only listen to the opinions of countries you think support the US? It is this sort of arrogance that has got your country its current reputation, and is why so many Americans still don't realise how far world opinion of the USA has dropped in recent years.

And for your information, the vast majority of people in India and China could not care less about the USA or anywhere else in the world - they have enough problems of their own. The leisure to consider the rest of the world only comes when you have a certain level of education and economic status. The governments of these two countries have very good reasons for going along with the USA in most things. And in Japan, like in most European countries, the government follows the USA for diplomatic, military and economic reasons, while popular opinion of the country (and its actions in the Middle East in particular) falls.

We didn't hear "Biggest bully and bad guy" when we were liberating
Europe and Asia from facism or defending them against the Communist
empires. I don't think we have changed as much as you have.


WII was sixty years ago - get over it. It's something to learn from so it doesn't happen again, but the American role in WII is not a permanent "get out of jail free" card. The same applies to the Cold War, even though it was more recent - and remember, western Europe are your allies, not your sheep. You "fought" the Cold War along with western Europe, not for it.

What is far more relevant, is that you didn't hear about the USA being a bully and a threat to world peace ten years ago. Sure, there were plenty who complained about Vietnam, USA meddling in South America, basing nuclear weapons in Europe, etc., but most people put up with them for sake of the good things USA brought the world. World-wide public opinion of the USA, and the Bush administration, has been dropping since Bush took over, and fell like a stone on the invasion of Iraq.


I don't think europeans really think we engage in "bad behavior"; they
generally don't give a rat's ass about the plight of dark-skinned

You are right that most people care little about what happens to foreigners, and the more foreign, the less they care. The UK people voted Labour last election despite knowing full well that Blair is a lying toadie and fooled the UK into war - they voted to keep the Labour government in office because the good they have done for the British economy is more important. And people don't care enough to suggest boycotting American products - we are far too dependant on the USA for that sort of thing. But the opinions of the people are affecting politics - look at the last Spanish election for example.

people. What upsets them is that we *can* do the things we do, that we
have the power and the will to change things.


Having that power is not the problem - the USA has had significant military, economic and political power for a long time. What has changed, and what upsets others (and an increasing proportion of your own countrymen) is the use and abuse of these powers that has come in recent times (perhaps since the loss of the balancing effect of the USSR?). People were not worried about the USA having the ability to invade Iraq - but when they see that you have done so, and made such a dog's breakfast of it, they are worried about what other destructive incompetences lie in wait, and for what reasons. People are not overly concerned about the fate of people in countries far away (although torture and other abuses wake a disproportionate reaction), but they are concerned about the effects on them. No one in Europe doubts that the American "war on terror" is an absurdity - it can't be defined, let alone won, and every step taken has made the risk of terrorism worse. No one in the UK doubts that the recent terror alert (to the extent that they believe it to be real, rather than blown way out of proportion) is the direct result of the UK's foreign policy, following the American lead.

John


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: US dollar keeps sinking endlessly--worth the same as the Canadian dollar now
    ... You have a pretty good grasp on economics here. ... Europe was being rebuilt and the US had an advantage and people ... when other countries have developed their industries ... And don't borrow any money on your ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Is CNN turning to the right?
    ... Should I give my tax money to them? ... mass production oriented nations, ... The situation in Eastern Europe is not different from the rest of the ... Government these countries are the New Europe, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: OT : so this is what our troops are dying for in Afghanistan !
    ... Any company makes all the profit it can. ... I see no reason for businesses to have any different attitude - money is ... You and I luxuriate in the bounty of such an economy and can afford to ... Europe: isolationalist, elitist, disengaged, jealous, still somewhat ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Where do i find bmw clubs?
    ... If you know about some bmw clubs in different countries in europe, ... Earn money while you enjoy your life ...
    (alt.autos.bmw)
  • Re: Russian tradition of assassinating journalists and human rights activists is alive
    ... Sure - colonial contracts and money made on robbery of the nation ... Sure - canceling colonial contracts and money flowing in the country to ... As to the single country currency as an anchor of the world economy - ... countries feel great unity due Cold War - and it fails. ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)