Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Anti-Americanism watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Yes, anyone who thinks that everyone should be equal is stupid! It's unrealistic to think that people should be equal, as humans we're designed to gave an elite rise to power! Luckily for me I was born into this elite so it's easy for me to hold such opinions and degrade those who dare to believe in decent humanitarian ideals!
    I don't know whether your quote is a joke or not but if i'ts not it's comforting to think our future is safe in your hands.
    I agree with a previous quote that greed will usually defeat communism but so has it defeated capitalism and paractically all other ism's. Trouble is, even with the 'elite' running things greed will also destroy humanism's
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    And a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

    Whats your point?

    The fact is I would like to know what your basis is for believing there is a feasible and superior alternative to the core principles n which western society is based.
    Because capitalism has so many flaws that it is not sustainable. Eventually it will unbalance society so much that it can no longer function. Something so ineffective in producing a stable society and balanced world will eventually self-destruct.

    Now why are you so convinced there isn't a better system?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee7)
    but so has it defeated capitalism
    I take it you mean it has IN SOME CASES - not that it renders the entire ideology defunct?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersonic)
    Because capitalism has so many flaws that it is not sustainable.Eventually it will unbalance society so much that it can no longer function.
    Care to explain why that is?

    Capitalism has actually INCREASED the wealth of EVERY continnt in the world except Africa, which has failed due to other factors.

    The notion that capitalism has to unbalance society oudl come as news to he CHinese, the Indians, Many Eastern Europeans and the Brazilians who are all getting on much better now due to it.

    (Original post by Supersonic)
    Now why are you so convinced there isn't a better system?
    Because before I believe in the existence of somethin I need a basis for that belief. If you have a basis, please let me know.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersonic)
    Because capitalism has so many flaws that it is not sustainable. Eventually it will unbalance society so much that it can no longer function. Something so ineffective in producing a stable society and balanced world will eventually self-destruct.

    Now why are you so convinced there isn't a better system?
    Come on, you can't even put forward a more effective system yourself!

    And I can guarantee you the capitalist system is NOT going to 'self destruct', if only because we haven't even come close to achieving a full and flexible free market system yet.
    Get your head out of Karl Marx and look at what we've actually got right now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Dont worry no one really hates America. Its just because there the best at everything so everyone just doesnt like that. Its the same as football a couple of years ago it was Man united now its Chelsea...get it. its nothing personal. Soon well be hating on India and China
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Come on, you can't even put forward a more effective system yourself!

    And I can guarantee you the capitalist system is NOT going to 'self destruct', if only because we haven't even come close to achieving a full and flexible free market system yet.
    Get your head out of Karl Marx and look at what we've actually got right now.
    And how exactly are we going to achieve this full and flexible free market?

    And ffs lets believe it a free market isn't the answer to all our poblems. You say i'm unrealistic your head is way up in the air. Come live in the real world and look at the real problems.

    And i've never read one book about Marx or political ideology...maybe i will when i've time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I take it you mean it has IN SOME CASES - not that it renders the entire ideology defunct?
    I accept it's probably only fair to say at the moment that 'in some cases' is more correct but based on the western (mainly USA/UK) ideal of capitalism I believe it has failed and others are likely to follow the same course. The problem is the mark of ultimate success is seen to be the accumulation of the largest amount of money. The ultimate capitalist mark of success is, by definition, the particular firm or organisation concerned dominating the market and putting all competitors out of business. That, in fact, logically ends up with the same as a 'nationalised industry', more akin to communism than capitalism. The basis of both systems (& I suspect all others) is the accumulation of the max wealth by the 'elite'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersonic)
    And ffs lets believe it a free market isn't the answer to all our poblems.
    There you go with that Nirvana fallacy again.

    Of course it isnt. But that's not the point now is it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee7)
    I accept it's probably only fair to say at the moment that 'in some cases' is more correct but based on the western (mainly USA/UK) ideal of capitalism I believe it has failed and others are likely to follow the same course. The problem is the mark of ultimate success is seen to be the accumulation of the largest amount of money. The ultimate capitalist mark of success is, by definition, the particular firm or organisation concerned dominating the market and putting all competitors out of business. That, in fact, logically ends up with the same as a 'nationalised industry', more akin to communism than capitalism. The basis of both systems (& I suspect all others) is the accumulation of the max wealth by the 'elite'.
    That's not really true.

    Both the UK and the US have regulations - anti-trust, corporate governnace etc.

    Additionally, many large companies are actually owned by institutional investors - ie by average people through pensions and the like.

    Further - taxes ensure that the profitability of one to a certain extent benefits others.

    I dont see how anyone can say that the UK or US have failed - the standard of living of the poorer sectons of socity there is far higher than even the middle classes under most marxist models.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    That's not really true.

    Both the UK and the US have regulations - anti-trust, corporate governnace etc.

    Additionally, many large companies are actually owned by institutional investors - ie by average people through pensions and the like.

    Further - taxes ensure that the profitability of one to a certain extent benefits others.

    I dont see how anyone can say that the UK or US have failed - the standard of living of the poorer sectons of socity there is far higher than even the middle classes under most marxist models.
    I accept that we've probably got as good a system as is reasonable to expect but believe it has failed because of the situation we find ourselves in and I think it needs re-thinking. As a basis, for example, of a railway system, doesn't it seem odd that the 'purpose of the operation is to accumulate as much money as possible for, basically, those 'elite' who already have sufficient money by any rational assessment? We may believe it mis-guided to cut down the rainforests in the name of 'profit' but whilst money is to made out of it they will be cut down by those in that industry who if necessary will bribe the necessary people. Put simply we are destroying the Planet; the war in Iraq is for money and is being orchestrated by Bush and his cronies who are earning trillions out of it' It's gone too far. If we don't change our ideas the Planet will be hard pressed to survive
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    The notion that capitalism has to unbalance society oudl come as news to he CHinese, the Indians, Many Eastern Europeans and the Brazilians who are all getting on much better now due to it.
    .
    Brazil's a bloody mess isn't it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Brazil's a bloody mess isn't it?
    Doing much better recently.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrissy909)
    I'm american and I agree with that. America has enough internal problems (no national health service, HIGHLY accelerated levels of gun crime, widespread problems with the education system to name a few) so it would be nice if the money could be spent on that as opposed to nuclear weaponry and invading countries that not even our own president can pronounce.
    I don't agree with this stereotype that all Americans are Southern hicks but it is worrying that George Bush was voted into power again...a monkey would be preferable.
    Actually, rates of gun crimes are at the lowest in the last two decades in most of the major US cities (especially New York).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee7)
    As a basis, for example, of a railway system, doesn't it seem odd that the 'purpose of the operation is to accumulate as much money as possible for, basically, those 'elite' who already have sufficient money by any rational assessment?


    Not really. If they charge too much, people won't buy tickets, hence they loose money. Plus, as said, many of the shareholders in the privatized industries are, ultimately speaking, average individuals.

    (Original post by deedee7)
    We may believe it mis-guided to cut down the rainforests in the name of 'profit' but whilst money is to made out of it they will be cut down by those in that industry who if necessary will bribe the necessary people.


    I think you are confusing capitalism with unregulated snatch and grab. You can have capitalism with rules and regulations. I mean, it may be profitable to shoot someone in the head and steal their wallet, but the fact that we criminilse such behavior doesn’t negate capitalism. We simply need minimum globalised standards of conduct in relation to labor, environmental issues and safety.

    (Original post by deedee7)
    Put simply we are destroying the Planet;


    A thing that markets can actually HELP with - see for instance Kyoto’s quota trading.

    (Original post by deedee7)
    the war in
    (Original post by deedee7)
    Iraq is for money


    There is no evidence whatsoever of that. Though I know full well it is an incredibly fashionable view.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You mean America isn't turning a profit from Iraq by spending only about $70-80 billion a year on it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    There is no need to engage in complex argument over this one. Visit America, compare their culture to ours and get back to me. I'm pretty sure you'll miss British institutions and culture.

    I'm making a fairly subjective judgement...

    It's just little tihngs like when your in a poor state of affairs and a British person instinctively offers a cup of tea! This is what I would miss if I lived in America.
    I've "visited" America from '93 until '05. And I've been "visiting" Britain for the last 7 months. Other than some additional pretty buildings, a weird road system, the level of alcoholism, and the level of reflexive anti-Americanism, I haven't seen much of a difference.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You mean America isn't turning a profit from Iraq by spending only about $70-80 billion a year on it?
    I used to make that point, but then I realised something

    the 80 billion comes out of the public purse,

    the profit goes to a select few.

    Thus - for those making the profit, they are actually way ahead.


    However, that is entirely irrelevant to the point that people seem to make which seems to be that - if US companies MAKE a profit, then the war must have been pursued IN ORDER to make that profit. Which of course is idiotic - anyone could see that US companies could have made far more by befriedning Sadaam once again, and getting some extra-special rates on oil and weapons deals.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I've "visited" America from '93 until '05. And I've been "visiting" Britain for the last 7 months. Other than some additional pretty buildings, a weird road system, the level of alcoholism, and the level of reflexive anti-Americanism, I haven't seen much of a difference.
    I see. Well we will have to simply disagree on this point then.

    There is something special about Britain - and if you can't see it, it's your loss :p:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I used to make that point, but then I realised something

    the 80 billion comes out of the public purse,

    the profit goes to a select few.

    Thus - for those making the profit, they are actually way ahead.


    However, that is entirely irrelevant to the point that people seem to make which seems to be that - if US companies MAKE a profit, then the war must have been pursued IN ORDER to make that profit. Which of course is idiotic - anyone could see that US companies could have made far more by befriedning Sadaam once again, and getting some extra-special rates on oil and weapons deals.
    And where to those $70-80 billion come from? A magic tree? A large chunk of that comes from corporate taxes. Sure, some individual firms might profit, but they don't exactly control 51% of the vote in the US and were hardly responsible for the decision to go to war in the first place. And as you mentioned, American companies (especially oil companies) would have made an absolute fortune if the US lifted sanctions on Iraq and Iran.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 9, 2008
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.