Atomic Bomb!!
Post: 109
Visitata da: 95 users
Please provide some reasons for your answer. Take into account the military and political issues and successes that could have arisen had the bombs not been dropped
Sondaggio
Should the U.S. have dropped the atomic bombs on Japan during WWII?
Yes
23
No
28
Only the first time
11
Totale voti: 58
And do you think that if they knew about this long term effects, usa wouldn't have sent them?? Or it doesn't make any difference at all? I guess you know well enough how this radioactivity issue works right?? Okey, let me specify a bit more... hm... imagine the situation: France conquered, east europe conquered, URSS in serious trouble, UK barely begging for help. Why didn't usa send atomic bombs as well as they did with Japan when the situation there was (in my opinion) critical?? Would you support if they had sent those bombs instead of sending army support?? Wouldn't that be a more extreme situation?
---- Don't ever look down on someone unless you're helping him up. Don't ever treat someone else the way you wouldn't want others to treat you. We're all people. 
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Aw... come on... don't you still love meh??  Anyhow, you've answered me so far, so it's a win for me 
---- Don't ever look down on someone unless you're helping him up. Don't ever treat someone else the way you wouldn't want others to treat you. We're all people.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
if they had known the radioactive effects my opinion on the issue would have differed as this would mean not only the immediate generation but subsequent generations would have been affected. Knowing that those who planned the bombings only thought of this as some sort of super bomb, then I would have to throw this into the category of the bombings of Japan before hand. As for why the Atomic Bombs weren't used with Germany- they were not fully developed to be used to begin with. By the time they were completed and ready to go, germany had already been virtually defeated. Their chain of command was in disarray, the soviets had already broken through from the East. While time was critical (Roosevelt virtually abandoned Asia and American troops to the Japanese as he believed Europe was a more pressing situation at grand) the atomic bomb was not ready to be deployed.
---- Everyone is living a myth and it's important to know what yours is. It could be a tragedy- and maybe you don't want it to be.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Actually thats all speculation.And im not saying this just to argue with you.I am saying this because it is true.We will never know for sure if Usa leadership, actually knew or not, about the radiation effects.We know for sure that the scientists working on the bomb did know.Thats a fact.But the scientists didnt have a direct line up to the hierarchy and there is a posibility noone cared enough about this, to have the presidents-viceprez ear.So while it may be true, it is not a fact.What we do knowas a fact, is how the Usa government tried to mislead the public about Japans intentions of surrendering, about the made up casualties estimate of a posible continuation of the war and how they even denied the radioactive effects, after the bombings.That being said, Usa leadership was caught lying, therefore i cannot trust them in their word. Not to mention that deaths by radioactive effects were approximately 15-20%.You still have to account for the rest of the civilian casualties and explain why the bombs were not droped on military locations, but they chose civilians instead.
----      
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
from what I understood from the leadership point of view, they have been targeting military targets beforehand. The issue is the Japanese government was still propagating to it's public much like Nazi Germany was regarding the true status of the war (an interesting thing you might want to look up is about "Radio Tokyo"; just a cool/interesting part of WWII history). Due to this, the civilian population itself was already preparing for war. POWs were being massacred before they could be rescue on numerous occasions (Cabanatuan and a book regarding it called "Ghost Soldiers" were both keen examples of this). The choice of civilians was to break the psychological hold that the people of Japan held. They had a rci history of honor, tradition, and up until then had never lost a single war with a foreign power (they may have been influenced greatly during Imperialism but for the most prt, held off direct control). This psyc had to be broken for the people to accept that not only should they surrender, but it would be okay. That fighting to the death, that fighting a war you know you've already lost is okay. Radicals in the military were prepared to fight the war until the very end, hence they tried to kill the Emperor, hence thousands committed suicide after the surrendering of Japan. i think when we look on this issue, you have to look at it from their point of view. While I do not think Americans are better than other people, in times of war, a leaders job is to put his solders life, his peoples life, ahead of the people they are fighting. While this was a horrible tragedy that I wish did not have to happen we have to accept that yes, it did happen. We have to understand the events leading to this decision that would haunt people for the remainder of their lives. It's through understanding these vents can we at least try and prevent future occurrences of this from happening. As you know, a nuke has never been used against anyone in the world since 1945. Let's hope it stays that way.
---- Everyone is living a myth and it's important to know what yours is. It could be a tragedy- and maybe you don't want it to be.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Ooh, such a nice block of text. I shall respond to your points to the best of my ability. What's wrong with selfishness and egocentrism? It is probably the single largest driving force of human civilization. To quote Adam Smith, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from the regard to their own interest." It is morally wrong to kill innocent civilians. Very true. But as I have previously stated, there is no such thing as morality in war. There is only practicality. It does not matter whether I, or anyone, for that matter, cares about civilian lives. In the modern age, there exists a third, new, way to win wars. It is to use air superiority to destroy the enemy's capacity to supply their armed forces, according to the video 'Victory through Air Power (1943).' Nowadays, it may also be possible to achieve the same through informational superiority. It is obvious, I hope, why this method is the most efficient in terms of cost to one's country. Sure, to your enemy's country, this is costly in both lives and material. But the enemy's situation is not your concern. In the breakdown of order, which is, after all, what war is, it is the nicest country that is at the biggest disadvantage, and the most ruthless that enjoys the most advantage. The people driving the planes on 9/11 and ISIS are to blame, but not for the plane crash and the atrocities. What they are to blame is creating the conditions, the breakdown of civilized methods, that made these atrocities acceptable in the first place. A clear difference, you see. Hitler... is a special case. Normally, he's accused of murdering six million European Jews. In this, I'd probably accuse him as well. All the examples I've mentioned involve atrocities done to advance one's position in war. If you have a hypothesis that explains how murdering six million potential citizens and soldiers helped the Third Reich in the Second World War, I'd love to hear it. If Russia goes to war with the United States, same case as 9/11 and ISIS. They are not responsible for the (potential) bombing of large cities and the resulting millions of casualties. What they will be responsible for is creating this war in the first place. Yes. Atomic bombs can destroy humanity, which would be an awful outcome. But then again, isn't that why we have treaties? You'll note that my one exception was if the combatant state in question signed a treaty to not commit said atrocities. Treaties which the United States happened to not be bound by as of 1945. So stop blaming countries for what they do in wartime - pressure them to demilitarize in peace. I hope that was thorough enough.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Rankist Sharck Account eliminato |
|
Its all a matter of how you perceive things and also the variables involved.You can say selfishness can be good as long as you are not harming someone for your benefit.If that balance doesnt exist, then we go from the single driving force of human civilization to the single most destructive force of human civilization.And thats the case in our societies.Since you did not make this distinction let me give you some real life examples of how "good" selfishness really is.Im just gonna post the results.The driving force on all the following things was selfishness, followed by greed. -depletion and destruction of our planets natural resources -technological and scientific and medical progress almost minimal and if not minimal only a small percentage compared to what is physicaly possible -virus and disease spread -poverty and accumulation of wealth on few people -constant war I dont think i need to provide more, do you?
Yes there is.Who says there is not?There certainly is morality in war.We are humans, we are not animals and people of the Geneva conventions would agree.And yes it does matter what YOU think.More than you seem to know."Morals" and "ethics" and customs and laws, if you take a look through history were always changing, always evolving, to get where we are now.It was the people who changed them, the citizens.If it was up to the government/church they would still burn witches in todays societies, but ultimately the people who live in a society have the power to change things.That is, if they give a fuck..
I cant believe these words are coming out of the mouth of a citizen and not a member of a government or army.As a human being, the only thing you know for certain when you are born is that you will die.The only obligation you have, is to yourself, to survive.That being said, it is only logical, to respect other peoples right to survival, unless theirs threaten yours.In a war, the soldier is threatening your survival and not the citizen, who probably didnt even want the war to happen in the first place.And we can move away from morals now and discuss about our rights as human beings.You can not tell me that if my corrupted government decides to go to war and me and my family are against it, then the enemy has the right to slaughter me and my innocent wife and kids in my house.There needs to be this destinction, for all our sake.This is unaceptable and im surprised you dont value your own life enough, to agree with me.
I dont see anything.All i see is basicly you saying that since the "game" is played like that, terrorists are not to be blamed for killing inoccent civilians.Thats disturbing.
Hitler is not a special case at all, if you look at things objectively and compare him with other historical leaders.Offcourse i have a hypothesis and i have posted it in depth on a previous discussion with Tito.The Jews were a huge threat to Germany s prosperity and even survival, so you should probably excuse him aswell. The jews had inflitrated/invaded in a sense, Germany, took over strong positions in politics, law and judicial system, banks and media and used this gradually acquired power to promote their own interests and their peoples.Moreso they were inciting revolutions and chaos, not only throughout all of Germany ( i provided dates and names in my other post) but through the whole Europe aswell, most notably Hungary, Russia and others.Do not be mistaken for they were, indeed, a threat.And by the words of a known and respected Jewish Zionist journalist/historian, it is clear that Hitler just wanted them removed.He explains in his interview that if there was a way to get them out of Germany sphear of influence and be guaranteed they wouldnt come back, he would do it, as it would be more efficient and less costly than mass murdering them.But he thought, it was the only way and thus he proceeded to commit said atrocity. Now by your way of thinking he is excused, because if you look at it practically, even if he had put them on trains and move them to Siberia or Hawai or Madagascar (options he legit was considering) they could still come back and be a threat.In the end, along with the guilty, died millions(?) of innocent Jews, so im not sure that was the best course of action.
That does not make sense at all.The USA government could be responsible for creating that hypothetical war.What then?Russia military is free to mass murder innocent American citizens and women and children?Your reasoning is disturbing and frankly, dangerous.
So what you are saying, is that no matter whats on a treaty or not, you will agree to it and that a piece of paper is all that matters?What if, then say, a new weapon is made, that you press a button and send electromagnetic waves to people far away, that mutate their cells and give them cancer.Usa then, would send it to Russian citizens in Moscow, so Putin would back out of Ukraine, as Usa wishes, so a hugely expensive war, both in terms of human lifes and money, is avoided.It would be legal, because there would be no treaties for this weapon.Would you support it? Not to mention, that treaties are to be broken, right?Tell me who ever gave a flying fuck about Geneva convention.Usa also has broken many treaties and so have other countries im guessing and im surprised, that after the exposure of series of blatant lying, public misleading and false pretenses for war and invasions, by governments throughout the globe, you still trust them, to respect treaties.That sounds very naive.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
not exactly.from what i remember reading, supposedly there were alot of people in between the actual scientists and the Usa leadership, so all information was filtered.Also, the scientists were more concerned about the bomb actually working and doing damage than the radioactive effects.So we can understand, starting with the scientists not putting much basis on matters on health, there is a possibility any concern, most probably minor, could got lost on the way up.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Maintaining that balance is the whole reason for the existence of the state. The state represents the collective interest of a group of people over the interests of individuals (theoretically, at least). Trying to maintain that balance as an individual, without the help of such a state, will merely result in everyone else taking advantage of you. I, being an individual and not a state, will keep being my selfish self, thank you very much.
The natural result of economic growth. The fact that you can afford a computer and an internet service tells me that you've been benefitting from said economic growth.
Still faster than what would be achieved in a state of general contentment.
Natural result of population growth and increased mobility. Besides, disease or not, you can still expect to live several decades longer thanks to the result of greed, despite increased prevalence of virus and (arguably) disease.
The fact that there is wealth to be accumulated in the first place is a result of greed. Poverty is not created by greed. It existed throughout history.
War is not a result of greed. It is a result of stupidity, and states failing at their one and only purpose.
No, you don't. That was quite enough to demonstrate how many of the supposed "problems" of greed are actually improvements compared to not having greed, or isn't actually a result of greed.
Morality is all good and well in times of prosperity, but in war, there is no morality, as I have said. Think about it: In a war, a country that tries to be "moral" without the support of some international authority (UN? treaties?) is merely going to be taken advantage of, just like an individual acting moral without the support of a state is going to end up being taken advantage of.
Again, see above. In a state of war, do you think one state is going to stop its strategic bombing because their enemy stopped? Absolutely not. They're merely going to take advantage of their enemy's refrain from strategic bombing. So, even if, the next time we're in a war, our country stopped its strategic bombing, that's not going to do anything for my or my family's survival except to worsen our chances of enforcing our state's demands on the enemy, instead of vice versa. Since, thanks to our democratic system, our state (in theory) supports our collective interest, I would much rather see my state enforce its demands instead of having demands enforced on it. Thus, it is in my benefit, in terms of both my survival and the eventual result of peace, to support strategic warfare against the enemy. The only situation in which it is in my benefit to not support strategic bombing is if us and the enemy both agreed to reduce civilian casualties by ceasing strategic bombing, but that's a treaty on its own.
You are being illogical. I'll give you a metaphor. A man walks into someone else's house and makes out with half a million dollars. The police charge him with tax evasion. Is the man a criminal? Yes. Is the police right? No. Are terrorists to blame for the civilian deaths? Yes. Are they to blame for the civilian deaths because they crashed a plane into a building, and committed atrocities? No.
In that case, that is the Third Reich failing at its one and only purpose. As I have stated above, the purpose of the state is to look after its people's collective interest. As of 1932, when Hitler started to really gain power, German Jews were part of Germany's people. Just like states have a responsibility not to commit atrocities on criminals (they are still part of the people), the Third Reich had a responsibility to not commit atrocities on the Jews. As for the Polish/Russian/etc. Jews the Third Reich murdered, Hitler is not directly responsible. What he is responsible for is creating the war that necessitated these atrocities.
In that situation, my opinion will be, whoever started this war will be responsible for civilian deaths in both the United States and Russia. The attacked party will be free of such responsibilities. Now please explain exactly why that reasoning is dangerous, because I don't see it.
I would, yes. Just like individuals who care about the collective interest without the benefit of a state will be taken advantage of, a country that cares about humanity's interest without the benefit of an international authority will be taken advantage of. Thus, if there is no international authority, such as binding treaties, it is a country's right, if they choose to use it, to do whatever they need to advance their position in war.
If a state violates the international authority, such as treaties, that gives them the same status as a person who violates the state: a criminal. I don't trust people to not be a criminal - yet it is their responsibility to follow the law. I don't trust states to not violate treaties - yet it is their responsibility to not violate treaties.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
you said it yourself, theoretical.States have failed, in this regard and they also cannot even keep the balance in their own dealings, as they have been proven corrupted, driving force being the politicians bank accounts and not their citizens interests.Moreso thats higly immature of you, to expect from the state alone, to supress your desire to harm other people.You are responsible for your own actions, the state is just there to enforce the law, in case you break
has nothing to do with economic growth.It has all to do with the 1% greed, who are ruining the planet to get richer, because doing otherwise would mean less profits and the majority of the ignorant citizens, who driven by selfishness are constantly harming the enviroment.Even with simple stuff like wasting coal and oil, eating too much meat or throw their garbage everywhere, or even hunting and fishing for fun, or spending paper for every little shit they do.
i beg to disagree.Have you even an idea how technologically advanced we could be right now as a species if we didnt have economical boundaries and multi-billion companies interests.Ever saw how they hunted down stuff like free energy or how they slow down telecomunication/computer chips/satelites and so many other, so the companies can earn for ever.
Wrong again.If not for the big corporations greed, sucking off the tits of the citizens for medicine and general medical treatement, i doubt we would have much to fear now.Its a fact how so many viruses came out of our own laboratories.Its a fact how they silence doctors who claim to be on the right direction on finding cures for numerous diseases or how they dont even sponsor teams to research properly in that direction.Not to mention about the food sector cause i can go on for 100 pages.How they keep poisoning us through food and soon only expensive organic food would be not harmfull to our health.They serve milk in USA schools to little kids, because they have contracts with the dairy industry making billions, putting selfishness and greed above our childrens health.Do you even know the facts that came up from studies on milk and that it promotes cancer and bone damage and the calcium it has cant even be absorbed?
Pretty sure you cant explain how you reached to your conclusion in the first sentence.As for the second, you can check hundreds of graphs and statistical data, to confirm how the gap between the poor and the rich is getting wider every year and how the wealth distribution keeps changing.Moreso saying poverty is not created by greed, because it existed throughout history, is invalid.One does not prove the other.They could both have existed throughout history and poverty still be created by greed.
Most wars happen for resources and land.Therefore driven by selfishness and greed.Other factors could be included, but these are for certain.Is what i said wrong in any way?
Both are wrong.Also this was not a very good metaphor, because the premises are different.in the first case, the police had no knowledge of the fact that the money were stolen.Therefore the police, based on the information it has, was right to charge him with tax evasion.As for the terrorists the answer is clearly yes in both of them, as far as im concerned.
Playing with words is not gonna get you anywhere.Trying to paint Jews as part of German society does not change tha fact that they were a threat to Hitlers Germany and he did what he had to do, for the good of his country.The main premises are all there.You saying "but" does not change the fact, that you encourage this way of thinking, that led Hitler to commit extermination of Jews.As for the direct and indirect responsibilities, give me a break.He is responsible for everything, wether directly or indirectly.
lol..its dangerous cause you want to kill our Acquisce!Yeah thats right.By your sick perspective, if Usa starts the war with Russia (which is very possible to happen in the real life, i might add) then Russia is free to nuke all East Usa coastal major cities right?You want to tell me, that poor young Acqui who never hurt a fly in his life and that he is sitting in his dorm room studying for his test or playing atwar or listening to old oasis interviews, will get fried by a nuke and that somehow seems alright with you?Just because a corrupted politician made a mistake, it is justified to burn alive thousand of innocent souls like Aqui?
Again that makes no sense.Since humans cant be trusted to follow the laws we tend to not trust them and take precautions.Thats why we have doors that lock, thats why we have alarms, dogs, some have guns, thats why we hide our wallet.Same with states, since its proven they lie, manipulate and violate treaties, why should we trust them?
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Except for the Canadians!  +1 for the comment: people are freaking greedy, self-centered and selfish and government is fucking corrupted (even if we don't wanna see it) by the 1% of the population that has like the 20-30% of all the wealth. And Khal is strong.
---- Don't ever look down on someone unless you're helping him up. Don't ever treat someone else the way you wouldn't want others to treat you. We're all people.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
 canada is life! <3
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Bosnjak Amko Account eliminato |
|
I would argue that many states are doing their job reasonably well. The state is there to enforce the law. Laws which make it in my, and everyone else's, interest to actually care about strangers. So no, they haven't failed. Because states enforce the law, I am assured that as long as I don't murder, I won't be murdered (not likely, anyways). This make it possible for me to act in the common good (lawful activities) without fearing everyone else taking advantage of my niceties. There is no such thing as "responsibility" in a society without order. It is the state that holds me responsible for my actions. It is the state that defines morality and responsibility.
Well, if you want to live like the medieval peasant, sure. Do so. As for me, I think I'll enjoy my share of today's wonderful global economy. The same global economy which happens to be created by the 1%'s desire to get richer. If you're smart, you'll do so too. But, if something, like the computers us two are using, is to be made, then the material, etc., has to come from somewhere. There is no way around it. If you want production, somewhere, something has to go. As long as pollution is regulated to a reasonable level (regulated by that same state you seem to regard as useless), I'd much rather have a new set of textbooks, rather than some tree I've never seen in some forest I've never heard of.
If we didn't have private interests, we'd be getting nowhere. Why would people ever try to make anything better, if they're all happy with what they already have? We came this far because we wanted something more. Corporations will always make what we demand with our money. As consumers, we drive corporations. You say not having free energy or fast computer chips is bad, but wanting them is... greed. If you're referring to Tesla's free energy tower, that's technically not proven, but alright. Let's assume that you're right on that point. Does it occur to you that if people didn't want more energy, Tesla wouldn't have made the tower in the first place?
If big corporations are leeching off the citizens for medical treatment, then make your own company that doesn't, and see if you can turn a profit. Supply and demand is the single best way, except for perhaps benevolent totalitarianism of a kind we've never seen before, of distributing resources. If nobody is supplying medical services as a lower price, my guess is that it's because there isn't enough demand to justify the expense of additional supply. Also, if you would provide evidence for the medical conspiracy you seem to assume is fact, that would be lovely. As for the next two points, supply and demand. If you like having organic food, demand it with your money. If more people buy organic, it'll become more practical and profitable to grow organic food. If you/the people can't be bothered to buy organic, don't blame the corporations for supplying what you demand.
The rich-poor gap is growing, because the rich are growing richer. The poor are not getting any poorer. Your average factory worker in the United Kingdom now enjoys better healthcare, stays better informed about the world, and has more political freedoms than the richest people of the 9th Century. Alright. Since you doubt this basic point, I'll explain how greed produces wealth through a few examples. If a merchant develops a new trade route between two cities, sure, the merchant grows wealthy, but the two cities now get to enjoy each other's products. If a factory owner develops a new production technique, then the factory owner starts swimming in profits, but society as a whole also benefits from the increased supply of products. Under a fair economic system, what is profitable for one person/company to do is generally also good for society as a whole.
In every single war since industrialization (say, starting from the Franco-Prussian War), no state, as a whole, ever benefitted from declaring war against another country. Austria-Hungary in the First World War simply collapsed, the Third Reich of the Second World War was bombed to ruins and had to re-industrialized, what little industry North Korea had in 1950 was destroyed in the Korean war, and many trillions of dollars were sunk by the United States spend in the middle east. So, if a country declares war against another, they are doing something harmful to their populace, and therefore failing at their only purpose. Greed starts wars, sure. But as I said, the state needs to regulate greed, and keep it from doing harmful, like starting wars.
See my earlier posts. What do you expect terrorists to do? Rest quietly as the United States destroys them, lest the tranquility of their enemies be disturbed?
Playing with words? It's called using precisely defined terminology. Words like "responsibility" can mean a lot of things. You are trying to lump together moral responsibility (it's morally wrong to kill someone), and legal/historical responsibility (someone should be condemned for killing someone). I keep saying it over and over again. Just because it was morally wrong for someone to do something, that does not mean they should be condemned for it.Besides, there is a very real difference between direct and indirect responsibility.
Yup. In the example you described, the United States government will be to blame for the death of poor Aqui. What do you expect the Russians to do? Sit quiet and get bombed without retaliating, lest the tranquility of their enemies be disturbed? On an unrelated note, is he actually a student?
That's my entire point! You can't trust states. That is why earlier politicians created, and I advocate for the expansion of, various international authorities, most notably the United Nations.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Hm… I hope you're not referring to the European countryes as if they're doing their job well or else I might feel the need of killing someone  You're a bit innocent right? I don't know where you get that thought from but sure not from reality. Laws are made from politicians, who are corrupted by money. They make laws thinking of the rich people and their complains, they make laws to protect themselves and their power, they make laws to ensure they (as an individual) receive the support from who has the money to ensure their own future in their company, etc. In my country alone, you can find tons of examples like that. About strangers… did you know they put knifes on the wall they made to separate Ceuta and Melilla from Morocco? And they also deny them medical attention once they crossed, if they're still alive. They even approved a law that enables police to kick them back to Morocco just after having climbed the wall! BUT if the stranger brings money, they even lick his ass. Nice dream. They enforce whatever they feel like enforcing. As long as you have money to support your action, they don't care what you do. Example: a poor guy steals 5 things from a supermarket worth 6 € = 2 years in jail. A rich banker robs 1 million € = 6 months in a posh jail and then leaves and goes back to his business. Nice ethics.
Hm… well, if you don't mind being a slave, good for you. Global economy isn't as wonderful as you might think, young one. This 1% created the market for them, to become richer at the expenses of us, the 99% left of humanity, which works for them and keeps feeding them with more and more money. Nice global economy, which is taking us to self-destruction. GJ humanity. Rules that are meant to regulate the market, which are supposed to protect us from a horror movie where the market rules all, laws that are approved by the politicians who are supposed to represent us, are being removed cause of the greed from that 1% which is either preassuring, threatening, bribing or whatever they can just for being able to get richer, again, at our expense. Yup, something has to go but… do you know the circumstances? Underdeveloped countries, such as in Africa, are made to sell their raw material at really low prize to big companies with enormous income. Then this guy produces something at another underdeveloped country, such as in Asia, where they pay employers miserable wages to then sell us a product at an exaggerated price. This is what globalization is mostly about, besides from the internet and technologies, which don't reach half the planet. Nice huh? Polution is not as regulated as they want us to think. State laws forbid industries to emit toxics and pollutants at more than a certain concentration. It seems all nice right? Well, this is what actually happens. Let's say a certain industry generates 1 ton of residues. They just grab 100 tons of water and dilute this toxic until it reaches its legal concentracion. But they still send that whole ton of garbage to the environment since treating it all would cost them more than just buying some extra water. Also note that they are wasting tons of water in this trick, which is actually starting to be in short supply around the world. You should also learn that something called green chemistry is being researched by some universities, a chemistry that avoids or at least reduces greatly the amount of residues produces, this way pollution is readuced for real. Guess what… industries don't care much about it and they don't have any excuse for it. They would actually save some money since they would save the money from the waste treatment and the method is just as expensive as the one they are using. They just don't want to change. There are two different circumstances for you buying some notebook: you may need them cause you have nothing left where to write or you're just being a greedy or capricious guy. If it's the first option, there's nothing to be said, you need something, therefor you buy it. In the second option, you're shortning our planet's lifetime, which is already being shorten quickly by the excessive population in this tinny world. Btw, haven't you heard about the great Amazon forest?? That's where most trees nowadays are being cut from. If you don't know this… I don't know… just read a bit more about the world we live in. If you heard about it, then get worried.
If there weren't private interest there would be common interest… can't you understand its meaning? It's when everyone or at least a part of a community wants something. That would take us further since we would make things without any personal interest, just for our commodity, for our happiness, for our needs, for our daily life, for our real passion. OUR, as a group, which would make people happier than working for some sort of money tyrant. That's an illusion created by them, young one. We don't drive anything. Corporations drive us with all their advertisments, the media, etc. You don't demand a thing with your lawsy amount of money, all you do is buy what you need and what you see. You can't ask for something that's not in the market and they put there what they want. If you don't have that, don't worry, you'll be spending your money on something else. But the money will reach the same place inevitably. Do you even know anything about Tesla's circumstances? Have you analysed who, why and how much energy consumes there? There are many reasons and possibilities to analyse there… They didn't want energy, they needed it! Nowadays, everything works with energy, people is obligated to use energy no matter what they want to do. Everything is made to work this way, there's no way of getting out of it, unless you live in the mountains by your own as a wild man, which barely no one in this world does anymore. With the actual demographic growth and the growth of electronical devices it becomes obvious that there is a higher demand on energy everywhere.
Big medical corporations centre their research on expensive treatments on purpose. They rather discover some long and expensive treatment which gives them lots of money that just some vaccine which consist in one or two shots during all your life and barely makes them earn any money short term speaking. If any little company discovers something that they might like (economically speaking) or that they find as a threat for their economy (such as a quick and effective treatment that replaces its treatment), they just buy the little company and make that research as if it were his or just hide the research. If the other company doesn't accept the offer, they just blackmail it or whatever. So in the end, they have no other option. Also, synthetizing a medical substance usually costs really little but its price on the market is usually quite high, you know why? Cause all the big ones agree to not lower the price from some limit so that the competition between them doesn't have any bad consequence for any of them. Meanwhile, they keep getting richer. Best way? Why so? Market isn't that easy to understand, they always have tricks, such as hiding part of the product so that the price raises. The system has many flaws, which has taken us to deep crisis of which the only responsibles are that 1% of the whole humanity. Oh man… so innocent that you even seem cute. You should know that organic food can't be offered at the same price as "non organic" food for some reasons, right? Big companies, which make tons of their product by non organic methods, can lower the price of its product to very low ones. Organic food can't compete against that so they get out of business. Most people in this world can't afford to pay for more expensive food; some of them barely afford to buy any food at all. They use this trick to push away organic food from the market so that then they can raise non organic food's prise again and make lots of money… Good strategy right?
And can you explain how is it that rich people get richer but poor people don't get poorer if there's a finite amount of money in this world? Don't worry, I'll do that for you. As you know, wealth is something material. In order that people don't feel the danger of becoming poorer meanwhile they can get richer calmly, they just add more material, more products, more wealth to the market. They exploit more and more resources from the world in order to keep the circuit of money through the market. The problem is that this money always ends up in the hands of the same people, the 1%, but the same amount that they are amassing is flowing back into the market due to the mass exploitation. We see they are getting richer, but we don't lose much. In this sense, we don't seem to be poorer right? But when you come to calculate the percentage, we actually are getting poorer. But who would even come to think about this? As far as they are concerned, as long as they have fun and some money, they don't care about anything else. Better healthcare? Where? It's being dismantled all over. It didn't last long. Better informed? Ha! People are being lied more than ever. Freedom? What's that? Can I eat it? Can you explain me how your example creates wealth upon the regular population? For example, let's say a guy decides to sell his apples in your city as well as in his own city. The guy makes double the money than before, he gets richer. People in your city are giving him their money, which they don't get back from him, so they're actually getting poorer. Greed produces wealth for a single person while making poor whoever is around him. Enjoying his apples won't make you happier nor wealthier. Fair economic system… such beautiful words right? Are you dreaming awake? This doesn't exist in this world! Companies are polluting the world at our expenses and getting rich with it, how is that supposed to be "good" for us?? I suggest you watch this video, it's really amusing and interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno
As far as I know, USA benefited a lot from both WW by lending money with really high interest to European countries, that's how USA grew. Of course, losers don't benefit from a war… why did you mention all losers then? And talking of USA, has the government ever said how much they robbed from Irak? And did you know that the wars they drove agains "terrorist" in the Middle East were people they supported a few years ago when they wanted some governments to be overthrown cause they didn't want to sell cheap oil to USA or just because this governments didn't like USA? Wars are started by greed, sometimes greed shows up in the middle of a war (such as USA selling weapons to African tribes in exchange of expensive minerals) and other times, wars cause the greed (such as USA lending money to Europe).
So if someone does something morally wrong, we all should congratulate him and support him to it again right? The difference between them is that indirect responsibility is usually greater than the direct one, so humans usually try to avoid thinking about it and blame others about it.
Great, let me get the popcorn, WWIII is about to start! Let's all use our atomic bombs, since we've got them, we rather use them for something right?
If you can't trust a state, you can't trust politicians since they're the ones running a state. If you can't trust politicians, which are supposed to represent us against the market and make laws that protect us, how are you supposed to trust the market? Or the UN? Or anything that has to do with politics and shit like that?
---- Don't ever look down on someone unless you're helping him up. Don't ever treat someone else the way you wouldn't want others to treat you. We're all people.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
Your rhetoric is sick ...good look in Haag! ...ah wait, thats only for little countries. .
---- 
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Sweet goodness... that's a serious block of text.
I have succeeding in living 15 years without getting murdered, robbed either directly or through frauds, am receiving a free education and subsidized healthcare. If I live a few more years, I can expect the state to pay my college tuition (some of it, anyways), and can conduct purchases and sales with easy-to-carry currency, the value of which is fairly stable. That is far, far better than what I would be able to expect without my state. They are doing their job, alright. Some room for improvement, of course, but unless they seriously fail in their purpose (fail to maintain order), I'm quite willing to live with its flaws.
At our expense? Being a slave? What joke. The unemployment subsidies in most developed countries support a richer lifestyle than a 16th Century peasant, working full time on the fields, had. What brought about this miraculous change? Economic growth. Driven by whom? Industrialists who invested their time into various money-making schemes that also usually happens to benefit society.
My home country used to be one of those poor countries who paid its employers miserable wages. Just 40 years ago, in fact. But now, thanks to the capitalists who invested their small fortunes into industry, small business owners who cut down on their food to start their own business, and also as important, the globalized economy that was willing to buy, even if it was at low prices, any of our surplus good, we are, a mere 40 years later, a country well on our way to prosperity, European-style. Globalization has suited us perfectly fine, thank you very much. In fact, was it not for globalization, my countrymen will probably still be working the fields. Globalization can pave a poor country's way to prosperity. In any reasonably democratic country (think India, Thailand, etc.), or any reasonably forward-thinking country (think China), they should be able to make use of it in not more than 50 years. Besides, even if their country is too autocratic and reactionary to make use of this wonderful new opportunity, globalization isn't bad. How can you take something away from a worker who's barely feeding his family to start with?
If water is really in short supply, its price will go up, making it impractical for factories to use that method. Supply and demand. Similarly, as I said previously, consumers drive corporations with our money. You don't like polluting brands? Organize a boycott.
See above. There are plenty of brands that sell paper made from farmed trees. The fact that great masses of people still buy paper made from Amazon trees tells me that people don't really care.
"Everyone or at least a part of a community wants something." So, by your definition, the "common interest" is the sum of private interests. Therefore, by your definition, if there is no private interest, then since nobody wants anything, there is no common interest.
Organize. Last year, our town's people got together and demanded that the local store stop giving out plastic bags. Their offer? A few hundred new customers for the store, who would gladly take higher prices in exchange for environmental friendliness. It worked excellently well.
It is very clear that you believe that more energy for cheap is better than less expensive energy. Well, that's a private interest. Without private interests, such as your clear interest in seeing the energy production go up and price go down, energy production wouldn't change. My point still stands.
"[Corporations] blackmail [the little company] or whatever" is so wonderfully vague. It reminds me of the various insults thrown by Soviet propaganda to the capitalist classes. Provide substantial evidence, here. Also, you're accusing the medical corporations of a lot, without any kind of real evidence. If you or your medical doctorate friend has a theory on how to cure common diseases cheaper and faster, post it up. That'll be evidence enough. If you don't have a medical doctorate friend, then exactly on whose expert opinion are your accusations coming from? I don't know what crazy legislative system Spain has, but here in my country, price fixing is illegal, and this state enforces its laws reasonably well. Although scandals do pop up time to time, there's no real way around that.
Read Adam Smith. If supply is short, compared to demand, price rises, removing from demand the consumers who only want it marginally, and incentivizing producers who marginally want to not sell, sell.
Well, if the public don't want to pay higher prices for organic food, organic food will gradually disappear. What do you expect? Besides, organic food hasn't really disappeared. If you want to buy them, there are plenty of options still, preventing non-organic food from having its price rise. People simply don't buy the organic food that line some grocery stores. Classic, completely classic supply and demand. The public has stated with their money that they'd rather have lower prices than have organic. What is not bought, will gradually stop being produced. What's wrong with that?
Easy. The total amount of money/wealth grows. $1,000 is as finite as $10, but it's a hundred times larger. Your reasoning is absurd. Sure. I enjoy a smaller piece of the economic pie than my ancestor 400 years ago did. The economic pie also happens to be a few hundred times larger. In the end, I get more pie. I find this result utterly satisfying. Percentages mean nothing. As long as my share of the pie, measured in terms of absolute value, keeps growing, I honestly couldn't care less where the rest of the pie goes. If the 1% has a bigger share of the pie, let them have it. After all, it is thanks to them (and perhaps the rest of the top 5%) the economic pie is big in the first place.
Healthcare is not being dismantled all over. What you are thinking of is the public subsidy for it. Perhaps it is time to put healthcare into the laissez-fair market? I personally disagree with that decision, but I can see the validity of the other side's argument. Better informed, yes. Your average 9th Century peasant would be lucky if he ever got to know what happened more than a day's walk from his village without relying on vague rumors. Now, welcome to the era of the internet. You're debating, right now, with some student a continent and a half away. If you don't see the value of the freedom of religion, for example, the freedom to move to another village any time you can afford it, and the freedom to sign up for whatever jobs are available, and see the value of those things yourself, nobody will be able to explain it to you. I guess I'll have to concede this point.
Alright. Let's say my village produces oranges. Tasty and delicious. The next village over produces apples. Also tasty and delicious, but alas, out of our reach. I get paid ten oranges a day for my work at the orange farm. Some random man decides that my village will love apples, collects his ten apple wage, and carries them over. I like apples, and decide to buy 4 of them. Since the man has done the work of laboriously carrying the apples over, he charges 5 oranges for just 4 apples. So, now I can choose, if I want, to have 5 oranges and 4 apples instead of 10 oranges. A new option has just been added to my daily menu. I think 5 oranges and 4 applies is more valuable to me than the monotonous 10 oranges, so I buy it. He carries my 5 oranges back to his village, then sells them for 6 apples. So, net result, I gain some diversity in my menu, and he gains two new apples. The beautiful thing is this: if I don't like apples, I don't have to buy them. So the man will only earn if he brings something we actually want. Value has been generated, and that's from just carrying stuff around. If you factor in innovation in production (think new person who opens a factory), value will be generated even faster.
"At our expense" I've already given my viewpoint on this absurd claim. As I said, my share, in terms of absolutely value, of the economic pie is a lot larger thanks to various corporations and small business owners. That's a lot more useful to me than the knowledge that somewhere, some tree will be surviving thanks to my poverty.
Marshall Plan? How much money did the US have to spend to bail Western Europe out of their war-caused destruction?
Alright. The people of France didn't really benefit in WWI. The Battle of Britain tore the victorious UK apart economically.
Sometimes, this sort of nastiness happens, but by and large, greed is good, and states have done their job if not well, then at least properly.
Here's an example of moral wrongdoing and condemnation: If I see a destitute, crippled beggar on the street, it is morally right to donate to him/her. However, I have every right to do the morally wrong thing, and not provide for him/her. Here's an example of direct and indirect responsibility: A man notes a plate hanging precariously on a shelf. Because he is lazy, he does nothing about it. A woman lets a bunch of kids loose in the room. Said bunch of kids playing around bumps into said shelf, and shatters the plate. The bunch of kids are directly responsible, as it was their action (or, in some cases, lack of action) that caused the disastrous result. The man and the woman are indirectly responsible, as the woman made the action possible, and the man's inaction (or, is some cases, action) created a circumstance in which the kids' action would cause the disastrous result.
You have summed up the correct action remarkably well.
Remember, the purpose of a state is for the benefit of the people it represents. So no state except my own are obligated to consider my well-being. Thus, I trust my state to do well for me, but I do not trust states in general.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
If someone offered me a lawyering job in Den Haag's ICC, I'd definitely take it. Unfortunately, I lack the suitable qualifications, experience, education, etc. etc...
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
You know what i implied 
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
|
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
agree with everything! on topic unfortunately this thread got heavily derailed and i dont have much time to debate economics.i will come back to it tho. on another note international reminds me of zombieyeti a little.
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
I think RaulPB gave up trying to debate with me. Care to pick up the tab for your Spanish friend? My post is good enough to deserve a response, I think... Also, who's zombieyeti?
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
|
as i said,sorry, but i need time which i do not posses these last days, to properly adress your new points, since i want to provide sources and maybe stronger arguments, cause you are slippery like a snake, meaning you evade and elude alot of arguments and find a windows or loopholes to hold on to and you are also like a hydra, meaning that no matter how many of your points we adress you will keep bringing new ones and take this thread on a new journey zombieyeti was someone your rank, played a little, debated alot, he had the same weird way of thinking, implying human "laws" are everything that matters in life and we should follow them to the letter and live our lives accordingly, forgeting that since humans are prone to errors and corruption, its only logical to assume, his law system will also be flawed, biased and alot of times,wrong.He knew his stuff though and was very educated, but was also emotionally immature and inexperienced.we had some great times together in off topic forum, that i will always cherish.he called me albanian anti-semite whore
----
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
|
