Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

yes and no...its not that simple...there are other issues...I'm sorry I am a tad bit busy right now, got another Essay to write (trying to finish early with Uni so I can fuck off to Serbia for a week) I'll expand later

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[QUOTE=88Mariner;450251]governmental intervention is capitalism? wow, that's news to me....

you make broad assumptions about capitalism when even you yourself admit it hasn't even existed yet.[/QUOTE]

That depends on your definition. Mine is different and therefor IMO capitalism has been around ravaging the economies of many countries for a few hundred years already.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[quote=Yao;450496]That depends on your definition. Mine is different and therefor IMO capitalism has been around ravaging the economies of many countries for a few hundred years already.[/quote]

but when implemented in the country being ravaged, it helps. its when capitalism fights with another system for a land that causes the ravaging. other factors as well, mostly social and political. even communist china allows for a lot of free market operations in an effort to compete globally.

we should all be wearing tuxedos and tophats and smoking out of a wood pipe right now. im going to get my monacle. [IMG]http://www.imagicwonders.com/galleries/folk/candids/images/Monocle%20Man.jpg[/IMG]

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[QUOTE=thesightless;450471]dont bring up a theory based on the economics of a thousand years ago. its a different entitity now. im with you on healthcare and education, [U]only in one way though.[/U] free healthcare and education should be entitled to all, but higher levels should be offered to those who can obtain it. if i can operate more cleanly, or teach better (harvard prof), i should be able to charge whatever i can get. a mixed bag there.

but no, not anymore, a true socialist economy, cannot grow beyond the normal inflationary rates of the country. there is no wealth being created, only re-distributed. i wont say go read some philosopher, ill say go to college for economics and accounting.[/QUOTE]

YES I will bring up a philosopher because this is completely appliccable to todays economies: he's not describing the economies per s?, rather the process of decision making in it and the human factor, and you'd have to agree with me on that one after reading it. It has fuckall to do with economics and accounting, the thing I was trying to point out.

I still disagree on the Health care and education level...although I'm into the reward according to ability thing. Some people simply literally deserve more than others. In health care what I would support is that people who make excessive use of it due to unhealthy lifestyles should be taxed more > making it free for everyone also carries the danger that some people will get careless and put an unnecessary strain on the fundings. That should be discouraged.

I don't agree with the 'higher levels should be available to those who can obtain it' simply because in general you do not choose by which illness you get struck: cancer can hit rich and poor people, so why should someone rich be able to get the medication and the poor not?

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

ok, you and me are plastic surgeons.

you do OK jobs with healing scars, i can make rosie donell look like jessica simpson. im sorry, but i deserve the right to make 10 million a year, even if the best you can do is 200K.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

^^^you need "political re-education" ---lol

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

No, Sean is right about that: if he works his ass off and makes 10 million a year, that is fine, even if I make only 200k a year. What I don't think is that that should mean that people that are willing but unable should be left to rot. I'm not saying give them everything, just provide a minimum living standard and above all, get them back to work again. I won't accept people living off my back, but I'll help those that genuinely need help.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

this is so goddamn hilarious. let's redefine capitalism as 'imperialism" and not tell anyone. well thanks for not sending me the memo.

capitalism hasn't been tried, not because of (again) the assumptions you make about what would happen based on a few progressive books you've read (and probably every movie you've ever watched), but because the government will not relenquish its power enough to let it occur. all of the major advances in modern civ are because of capitalism.

the more power the government has, the fewer liberties people have. economic liberties, civil liberties.

and free healthcare? there's no such thing. someone has to pay for it.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

Excuse me, but why the fuck would you doubt my sources? Could it not be that I have read enough and seen enough to simply have formed my opinion based on that? Why the hell eould your literature and sources be better than mine?

fuck you and you opinion, it doesn't matter anymore. you assume I haven't read jack shit and am just crying while maybe my opnion IS based on enough evidence and/or literature, and my be just as viable. I fucking hate people that think they are the ones that have read more than anyone about a certain subject. I'm done with this discussion, suit yourself.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

and imperialism is more aimed at countries who acted like the english, french and spanish of the pre-american revolution, in that they control outside lands for thier own benifit, capitalism is geared more to a free, or extremely loosely monitored economy. socialism being a controlled economy.

and my tax return and net worth for my age dictate i dont need an re-education.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

^^^Fucking hell...sorry to have hurt your pride, I was just joking! No one doubts that you are a true little pioneer of capitalism, marching ahead and making millions. I don't know... I think I'll try and stay clear of the politics "discussions" on ms from now on.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

avoid that, i think this thread alone shows you can have a civil chit chat and explanation of reason.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

Capitalism is business. Forget about government. Its business that builds nations and people. Governments only know how to do one thing....take all the credit.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

wow, the amazing thing about this thread (now that I've finally read through the entire thing) is that:

a. Sean and Yao are generally in agreement (as am I) b. Shpira consistently generalizes that America is a pure capitalist (or in his words, imperialist) system.

Shpira, do you even bother to read other people's posts? ...because it seems all that you argue is taken straight out of books and far left ones at that....Chomsky would be proud.

First, you seem to be missing the point that to different extents, both sightless and Yao are proposing a Capitalist/Socialist hybrid system (for as much as Sean hates hearing that :p ).

As for your book's theories, communism is an interesting idea, but leaves little in terms of free will and only truly succeeds when it destroys everything in its way. Hell, even the Chinese realized its limits and have taken on a much more capitalist attitude towards its economy (not that it was a true communist system either...before you point that one out). You almost make it sound like everyone's personal freedoms will be exponentially better under a communist system, rather than a capitalist system. You can't actually believe that, can you?

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

No...I am aware that I sound very very leftist and yes I was aware that Yeo and Sightless agree on some issues although Yeo seems to be marginally more socialist in many of his views ...I haven't really defined my own political position as a raving communist although I am a fan of some sort of strong government at least to begin with...as for Chomsky...well he is a good author to get your mind working.

I am sure of only one thing if the world is democratic/capitalist now then fuck it call me a anti-democrat. I don't really believe that Democracy works or that the governments want it to work well. It suits them to have politically uneducated populations which can be swayed either way at a flick of a TV channel i.e. a stupid population who reeds the sun and watches TV all the time...this gives them control to use for their own gain.

P.S. nothing that I argue is straight out of books I assure you of that...my view's are far too extreme even for books!!

N.B. I have never said that the US is Imperialist!!!! The whole west is Imerialist...NOT the USA

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[quote=Shpira;451198] P.S. nothing that I argue is straight out of books I assure you of that...[/quote]

Weren't you just having trouble earlier today copying and pasting from wiki for school?

and by "copying and pasting" i mean "plagiarizing" ;)

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

^^^lol It was a date...and a looooonnnnggg name in German

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[QUOTE=Shpira;451198]I am sure of only one thing if the world is democratic/capitalist now then fuck it call me a anti-democrat. I don't really believe that Democracy works or that the governments want it to work well. It suits them to have politically uneducated populations which can be swayed either way at a flick of a TV channel i.e. a stupid population who reeds the sun and watches TV all the time...this gives them control to use for their own gain.[/QUOTE] Wasn't your point about the evils of capitalism or are you now changing it to about democracy?

[QUOTE=Shpira;451198]P.S. nothing that I argue is straight out of books I assure you of that...my view's are far too extreme even for books!![/QUOTE] Don't get too high on yourself there. I've read plenty of views that would make your own seem tame by comparison. ;)

[QUOTE=Shpira;451198]N.B. I have never said that the US is Imperialist!!!! The whole west is Imerialist...NOT the USA[/QUOTE] Fair enough.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[QUOTE=88Mariner;450676]this is so goddamn hilarious. let's redefine capitalism as 'imperialism" and not tell anyone. well thanks for not sending me the memo.[/quote]

Alright, one last try: I wasn't even specifically referring to the colonizing part, but hey, why not include it. This still makes my argument viable, for a few reasons:

(1) capitalism the way it is in place nowadays is extractive and promotes inequality. Growth cannot come from nothing, something wil have to form the raw basis on which production can take place. Natural resources, and since they are abudant in places outside the West, it means the West will have to venture outside it's boundaries to get what it needs. This can be done by an imperialist system, but is not necessarily so, because (2) in many cases the West has promoted it's interests without invading and occupying a place, but rather by politics, backdoor politics, political pressure, economic pressure and blatant corruption. As far as I can tell those latter can all be part of an imperialist system but are not the definition of it. They are also parts of capitalism, but need not define it either.

Now where the hell did you get the idea that colonization was purely an imperialist phenomenon, rather than a symptom of a capitalist system looking for resources to fulfill it's needs? As far as I can see Imperialism has never been enough reason by itself for occupying territory, rather one of more instruments and in many cases a cover for the real reasons of occupation: mercantilism and capitalism. So, at the minimum of assumptions I'd say Imperialism has always been closely connected, maybe even intertwined with capitalism.

[QUOTE=88Mariner;450676]capitalism hasn't been tried, not because of (again) the assumptions you make about what would happen based on a few progressive books you've read (and probably every movie you've ever watched), but because the government will not relenquish its power enough to let it occur. all of the major advances in modern civ are because of capitalism. [/quote]

And this is the part that really pissed me off. Incredible how easy you make assumptions on there whereabouts of what I know or state without ever having seen me or my bookcase. The government is all too often one of the biggest factors behind capitalism, just one of the players in the system, controlling it (China) or being controlled by it (USA). Look around you and think more than .4 seconds before insulting people.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

I glanced at the thread but here's my little diddy bout jack n diane - 1. socialist economies destroy health care as they prohibit specific services from being rendered. ie. yes, everyone get's healthcare, but say they need a surgery, one is now placed on a waiting list to receive that surgery. I wholly agree that everyone deserves healthcare, and I'm for a 2 tier system. Tier 1 to cover everyone and basic services regarding acute illnesses. Tier 2 are for people that can afford the healthcare and are willing to pay the high premiums of private insurers. 2. The fundamentals of the world's economies are based off philosphies - capitalism and free market as it pertains to say John Adam's Wealth of Nations, or Keynes, or even to an extreme, Karl Marx. The world's most notable economists have used these fundamentals to understand and predict future economic trends per their own philosophies. When it comes down to it, regarding any age old philosopher as non-applicable throws out the foundations of myriads of issues in our society. For example, there would be no chemistry which was derived from alchemy which was further derived from the pythagoreans view of earth, air, water, and fire, the sun and the moon.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

ok, i have had about enough of this stupidty from all you pinko whinos.

from wiki.--- [QUOTE] [B]Imperialism[/B] is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. This is either through direct [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_%28country_subdivision%29"][COLOR=#0000ff]territorial[/COLOR][/URL] conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics"][COLOR=#0000ff]politics[/COLOR][/URL] and/or [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics"][COLOR=#0000ff]economy[/COLOR][/URL]. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire. [/QUOTE]

tell where or when, since america won its independence and africa was granted its own governance, has any western nation acquired territory, or controlled a government. i know the china/taiwan situation, as well as northern ireland, but that is more based in a region wanting to secede form another, as opposed to a takeover.

so, now, in a civil manner, explain how the west is acquiring, or managing governments, as opposed to what we really are doing, in allowing our businesses uncontrolled operations (unless there are direct crimes). im seriously wondering how many ppl can be so dumb as to think " american imperialism" is operating, since the only time we have actually taken control of something was the period after ww2 in japan, which subsequently, lead to a hand over of operations back to the japanese after the reconstruction of thier country. and BTW, america's evil hand did pretty fucking good there i think, considering japan has one of the worlds leading economies, hasnt violated any international treaties outside of bootlegging, which isnt done by anyone as a government directive, and finally, japan hasnt aggressed on shit and operated with everyone on a peaceful, stable, and prosperous guideline.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

I don't care....capitalism - communism...in my opinion the end of history is near either way. And I don't mean in a biblical psychotic sense I mean in political and global terms. What will happen when all the lands have been exploited and there are no third world countries to exploit...what will happen when globalization has taken its maximum toll on the whole world and there is a uniform standard for everything...the end of history...unless there is a new world war ?

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

answer the question. you formed an opinion, that can easily be challenged, and im challenging without insult or smartass remarks, so, please go ahead.

the end of history isnt near, if anything, down the line after the middle east cuts the shit(violence), we will eventually see what the UN was designed for, in a global political system, with a strong hybrid of capitalistic economies, and socialistic civilian serivces that enable Yao's idea of care and rights for all with my idea of "work harder, benifit better".

now you may not love the fact that american business has prospered and grown into other regions, but what the hell do think oil is? the middle eastern oil industry is the single strongest capitalist industry on the planet in that they dicate thier own prices, via shady politics and coalition, and hold it over everyone's heads. so the tables have turned, you might opt to realize that the things that ppl rip america for are accomplished by other regions in a far more drastic manner

so please, i ask, back up your opinion, as i see it right now, it is comparable to me saying my opinion is that the earth is covered in hawaiin punch asopposed to water and land.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

What do you want me to back it up with...quotes from books? The current system is based on "exploiting" (depends how you look at it as it does help them in the long run) countries who are economically weaker e.g. china had/has sweatshops and its economy gradually got stronger...eventualy the price of labor in countries like china (well maybe not china since they are "communist") or more in democratic countries like India at which point the major manufacturing industries will as they have done before move on to the next in line which offers a more competitive cost of labor...I ask what will happen when all of these "third world" countries have developed where is the cheap labor going to come from and whats going to happen then... The "work harder benefit better" theory would be more likely in an ideal world the reality will be that the workers will then have a greater bargaining power through Unions and what not...that causes strikes and stalemate...democracy would not survive.

I don't care that AMERICAN business has prospered! Really I have nothing against America as a single country in a kind of nation hatred that you seem to think I do! I am simply trying to point out flaws after all America was built on the idea that if something doesn't work it should be fixed...right? To me this is a cause of concern as I do not see a viable solution which would help the survival of todays society...

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[QUOTE]...eventualy the price of labor in countries like china (well maybe not china since they are "communist") or more in democratic countries like India at which point the major manufacturing industries will as they have done before move on to the next in line which offers a more competitive cost of labor...I ask what will happen when all of these "third world" countries have developed where is the cheap labor going to come from and whats going to happen then... The "work harder benefit better" theory would be more likely in an ideal world the reality will be that the workers will then have a greater bargaining power through Unions and what not...that causes strikes and stalemate...democracy would not survive.

[/QUOTE]

ok, i re-read it. so i think i got where you are coming from, but i could be wrong.

upon the implementation of sweat shop style labor and the associated costs, i will ask the question, how else is an industry given the incentive to operate in said country, and we will use india here for example. if not given the cheap labor, a few things happen. for one, their wont be any money coming into a country, as industry will avoid it. (see : africa). but upon receiving the "benefit", the seed is planted, and at least some source of employment and income is beginning to be generated, and now, there is income to be spent. with income comes spending and growth......

fsat forward a few decades. so growth has happened, government organized better to protect wealth, and the budding industry moved on to say africa, where thier labor costs are rising. assume the point that africa is the very very very last option and spot where labor was avilable and they are now operating repsectbale local economies. the global feild is leveled, everyone is making money. this is where the socialistic ideals can move in in peicemeal. labor markets are separated and high skilled jobs and low skilled jobs have now found a common ground as to value in repsect to each other, and the lefty ideas can move in.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

ok...fair enough but if thats achieved through capitalism and there is no ideological indoctrination what keeps the workforce "low skilled" labor from grinding economies to a stand still and blackmailing governments...since money is the ultimate goal!

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

but thats just it, the "low skilled" labor, throughout history, pushes themselves to the point where they destroy themselves via greed, until they lose jobs and have to take the work to survive. and im not talking about a 15K a year janitorial position, but another repsectable job, and if you doubt this, check out what is happening to the american auto manufacturing unions, the prior events of the english mining industry, etc. it can, has and will balance itself in the face of "take what you can get, or nothing"

what i was asking from you, was not an ideal, but rather a theory based on real behaviour and actual factual representation. as i tend to rip[ yao for , old theories, especially those of ppl who never saw the 19-21st centuries, simply because of the change in technology, trade, ideas of human beleifs, etc. while aristotle has points, they can hardly be considered reality or even a majority of a realistic system. indeed, parts of them, incorporated into the whole of it can be benificial, but cannot be deemed "solutions", nor should they be talked about as the only way, simply because they arent. no one can prove they are, in fact, most people with an education and experience in things like finance, commerce, history, can easily disprove them.

so pull up some facts, based within the last 200 years, regarding labor and relations, and back up your theory. hey, if anything, you will only educate me, and thats more than enough.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[quote=thesightless;451248]ok, i have had about enough of this stupidty from all you pinko whinos.

from wiki.---

tell where or when, since america won its independence and africa was granted its own governance, has any western nation acquired territory, or controlled a government. i know the china/taiwan situation, as well as northern ireland, but that is more based in a region wanting to secede form another, as opposed to a takeover.

so, now, in a civil manner, explain how the west is acquiring, or managing governments, as opposed to what we really are doing, in allowing our businesses uncontrolled operations (unless there are direct crimes). im seriously wondering how many ppl can be so dumb as to think " american imperialism" is operating, since the only time we have actually taken control of something was the period after ww2 in japan, which subsequently, lead to a hand over of operations back to the japanese after the reconstruction of thier country. and BTW, america's evil hand did pretty fucking good there i think, considering japan has one of the worlds leading economies, hasnt violated any international treaties outside of bootlegging, which isnt done by anyone as a government directive, and finally, japan hasnt aggressed on shit and operated with everyone on a peaceful, stable, and prosperous guideline.[/quote]

LOL, you're setting yourself up for something reallll bad here.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

no im not, im setting myself up to learn something, as so far in my life, i learned things that lead me to incorporate a system of knowledge from different areas including history, finance, taxation, and law, as well as business management, into a beleif that a modified system based on capitalism is indeed the best, history and current events are proving my ideas correct.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

I will do, you caught at an bad time now as I'm packing right now...going home for a week...once I get back (if you are still interested) I will come back with some books and quotes...as I have read about this...good to see your still open for new opinions and that your mind isn't completely set.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[quote=thesightless;451299]no im not, im setting myself up to learn something, as so far in my life, i learned things that lead me to incorporate a system of knowledge from different areas including history, finance, taxation, and law, as well as business management, into a beleif that a modified system based on capitalism is indeed the best, history and current events are proving my ideas correct.[/quote]

ok then, how about this. Philipines, Nicaragua, Panama, Hawaii, Peurto Rico, ports of China under US rule, Japan pre WW2, Koreas....just a little food for thought....how do you think Asians migrated to America? crap I forgot Chile. According to your definition, all these nations meet those requirements.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

^ are you providing those as counter-examples? or are you bolstering his arguments? careful now...

can anyone defend the idea that 'government knows best' when in comes to markets?

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[quote=Localizer;451374]ok then, how about this. Philipines, Nicaragua, Panama, Hawaii, Peurto Rico, ports of China under US rule, Japan pre WW2, Koreas....just a little food for thought....how do you think Asians migrated to America? crap I forgot Chile. According to your definition, all these nations meet those requirements.[/quote]

not sure what you are asking here, but if it is falling under the idea of american imperialism then...

well first off you have to split those examples into the sub classes of involvement.

in hawaii, you have a US state, purchased the state, after an uprising of the existing citizens there, and thier involvemnt in terms of miltary intervention was asked for by the royal family of hawaii with the aim of keeping public order during the obvious upcoming revolution.

puerto rico, this had a lot to do with the spanish american war, as opposed to a takeover or pressure. after spain invaded the american border islands (american in continental sense, not national) the US fought them off, and elected to extend the rights of being a commonwealth, whereas we help help and demand nothing in terms of funding.

wait a sec, i wont go on, if im answering the wrong question.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[quote=88Mariner;451604]^ are you providing those as counter-examples? or are you bolstering his arguments? careful now...

can anyone defend the idea that 'government knows best' when in comes to markets?[/quote]

counter-examples.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[quote=thesightless;451633]not sure what you are asking here, but if it is falling under the idea of american imperialism then...

well first off you have to split those examples into the sub classes of involvement.

in hawaii, you have a US state, purchased the state, after an uprising of the existing citizens there, and thier involvemnt in terms of miltary intervention was asked for by the royal family of hawaii with the aim of keeping public order during the obvious upcoming revolution.

puerto rico, this had a lot to do with the spanish american war, as opposed to a takeover or pressure. after spain invaded the american border islands (american in continental sense, not national) the US fought them off, and elected to extend the rights of being a commonwealth, whereas we help help and demand nothing in terms of funding.

wait a sec, i wont go on, if im answering the wrong question.[/quote]

"[B]imperialism[/B] is the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. This is either through direct [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_%28country_subdivision%29"][COLOR=#0000ff]territorial[/COLOR][/URL] conquest or settlement, [B]or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics"][COLOR=#0000ff]politics[/COLOR][/URL] and/or [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics"][COLOR=#0000ff]economy[/COLOR][/URL][/B]. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire."

Hawaii was sovereign till it was settled on, as were many other sovereign territories. The US coerced China, and even fought them, for the opium trade. They directly controlled the markets in China which also provided invitations to the Belgians, French, and British. - All signs of imperialism. And I mean come on, the vast expansion of the wild west and the 'new frontier' is in and of itself imperialism.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

to play devils advocate against myself, ill at least take a shot at "gov't know best" being great.

it only works if every single person, or at least an overwhemingly wide majority, on the planet, but into it. and accept the idea of being instructed on what to do. but that is hardly the truth, communism could ideally work, but in fantasy world only. under controlled circumstances where free will and desire dont apply. if we were robots, we would accept gov't directive as to what to work, how long, where, and pay scale. but we arent, no heavy govt control doesnt truly work in reality.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

OK LZ< i see where you are aiming, but please do not disregard i emphasized that prescedent as to post WW2 era, and even so, the examples you mentioned can all be refuted in similar ways like i did already. i.e. the US being asked to intervene, or extend privelege in PR's case ( and i lived PR for 2 years, and the ordinary citizen there is quite proud of thier involvement in the US).

for instance, the ports you mentioned, we keep our involement on the customs and corporate scale, and do so in co-operation with china, much like last year's media fueled fiasco of the saudi company operating our domestic ports.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[quote=thesightless;451710]OK LZ< i see where you are aiming, but please do not disregard i emphasized that prescedent as to post WW2 era, and even so, the examples you mentioned can all be refuted in similar ways like i did already. i.e. the US being asked to intervene, or extend privelege in PR's case ( and i lived PR for 2 years, and the ordinary citizen there is quite proud of thier involvement in the US).

for instance, the ports you mentioned, we keep our involement on the customs and corporate scale, and do so in co-operation with china, much like last year's media fueled fiasco of the saudi company operating our domestic ports.[/quote]

Oh, no doubt man, I know the US has brokered many treaties between nations trying to break from their imperialistic neighbors. I'm just pointing out that the US is just as guilty as any other nation for imperialism.

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

but that is not imperialism, imperialism in itself dictates a degree of unwanted control, which isnt there in those cases, in fact, all of them show the opposite, a wanted degree of working together for mutual benifit. a nice example i mention is what happened last year in Germany. well it goes like this.....

the US opted to close a few overseas military bases left over from last century, but the mutual benifit that germany received caused a bit of a stir as the local economies were so heavily reliant on the bases that Germany itslef asked the US to keep the bases. this hardly falls under the prototypical imperialism idea. if anything, this is the proverbial olive branch extension to them.

PS can anyone tell im writing again? article in Institutional Investor coming soon.....

Re: hahaha douche. (chavez)

[QUOTE=thesightless;451720]PS can anyone tell im writing again? article in Institutional Investor coming soon.....[/QUOTE] I didn't know you wrote...and yet where do you find the time during this most glorious tax season? ;)