Former conspiracy believer here

[PixyMisa]

If we were talking about pure numbers, then sure, I would happily "show you the numbers"... In truth what I believe we are discussing are the negative impacts that favoring a certain mode of thinking have on the rest of the world, particularly the 3rd and 2nd world nations.

That's directly measurable. Show me the numbers. (By the way, the 2nd world no longer exists, so I don't care a whole lot about what happens there.)

Everything in that paragraph makes sense if you had some knowledge of this topic outside of your wallstreet journal readings into it. To repeat, because of our global influence economically we are able to dictate to others how they will operate economically...and how is that freedom again?

False premise.

We could argue all day, and that still wouldn't change the fact that your being a little too nit picky...there are financial forces such as corporate ones, and governmental ones that do alter the way thing work out in your bizarre world of trickle down economics and thus affect the whole world.

I prefer to work with facts. You're using metaphors.

Read a book or two, I feel you can answer this one yourself. Or just type in economic theory into wiki and see what you get...

Uh, by definition, that won't work. You said that "there are a host of possibilities that are never explored". If it's part of an economic theory, that means it's been explored. So... Like what?

Need a cracker or something? Like some government restriction on an otherwise free market.

Sure. Like what? And what evidence do you have that this proposed intervention does something other than make things worse?

So thats basically what I said...the first part anyway. Nice list of examples though...so your saying the rationale for not preserving the basic human rights of those in countries that are being exploited is secondary because of some irrational, invisible fear that it will bring unfavorable conditions similar to the ones you have described, and that might effect their ability to gain more capital? It just sounds like a nice way to shirk your responsibility to your fellow humans to me.

Nope. That's not what I said at all.

I noted that it is impossible to eliminate economic inequality... Or at least, the only way to do so is to kill everyone. It is possible to mitigate inequality, but this has been shown to damage economic growth in proportion to the extent of the endeavour. Thus communism, which provides perfect equality (well, in theory) in the present at the expense of any future whatsoever.

The problem with smaller-scale socialism and protectionism (two things that no country in the world is free of) is more subtle, and comes back to the law of unexpected consequences. For example, the observation that you can't eliminate poverty by giving people money.

Here is an interesting read on the subject entitled "The mystery of capital"...
(snip)

Hmm. Hardly groundbreaking. Well understood, I would have thought. The rule of law is fundamental to economic development. Poverty and corruption go hand in hand; the question is the direction of causality.

Again, I have already explained it. I have supplied multiple sources for your to direct your inquiry, and you still over simplify the problem and ask again. Get a clue.

I don't see that you have even addressed the question.

Don't even begin to lecture me on human rights here. Your the one advocating the exploitation of thousands so that a few can make a little bit more the next year.
Here is the universal declaration of human rights as created by the UN-
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Yeah, I've read it. It's a well-meaning but ultimately inane document. Articles 1 and 2 are a bit waffly. 3 to 14 are fine. 15 is kinda weird. 16.1 and 16.2 are fine; 16.3 is weird. 17 is my main argument here. 18 to 21 are fine. 22 is Marxist cant. 23 is weird again, half Adam Smith and half socialist ideology. 24 is utter nonsense. Paid holidays are a fundamental human right? I haven't had a paid holiday since 1994. 25 and 26 are simply delusional, 27 meaningless, 28 is self-referential wish-fulfilment, and 29.3 is possibly the highest concentration of hypocrisy I have ever come across. Burn the second half and you'd have something worthwhile.

Now go down the list and see how many times the favoring of this economic practice has violated it.

The second half of the Declaration is fundamentally incompatible with the first half. Hardly my fault.

How exactly do you have a choice if tomorrow the government discovered a much needed natural resource under your property and annexed your long held land under imminent domain paying you a pittance of it's actual value, and then in the bargain laid waste to your land and the ecology of surrounding lands all so that we could burn coal for an extra couple months... meanwhile your discovering spots on your lungs from all the pollution that you are now breathing...this is the basic story over and over and over....open your eyes....

Really? And who, exactly, is doing this?

"Freedom" as you think of it is destroying the world without delay. All of this freedom has put holes in the ozone, and made drinking water unsafe, has caused wars for natural resources or regional influence, and has undermined the basic human rights of people the world over....and finally...it has put the decisions in the hands of an isolated few at the expense of the many...and that isn't really freedom at all.

No.

Yes you know, the persons residing in the parts of the world who are having they countries literally raped by industry without ever seeing a single penny invested in their well being.

Literally raped? I presume you aren't accusing industry of having unconsensual sexual intercourse with these countries, so you must mean that they are seizing these countries' assets by force. No money involved, huh?

Might I ask, whose army is doing this?

Those are also the same people that make tennis shoes for you 18 hours a day without a bathroom break....you know the little people, as you might like to think of them.

Are they slaves? If they are slaves, then that is criminal and inhuman, and whoever is responsible should be shot.

If they are not slaves, if they are there by choice, even if they only made that choice because all the alternatives were worse, then that is still freedom. Freedom doesn't mean that nothing bad will happen to you. Sometimes all the choices available are bad ones.

You could, I might take it as you haven't the slightest idea or concern for what goes on in this world outside your bubble of comfort.

And why would you think that?

 

[Nick227]

Nick, YOU're the one who's making a statement. YOU're the one who needs to provide evidence of your claim.

THAT's what I was talking about. Your theory might "fit the facts", but so do other hypothetical theories.

Hi Belz,

My basic contention was that the pattern of events surrounding the activities of the WB and IMF was consistent with them following a covert plan to further globalisation.

I agree that there are other explanations. Certainly it's possible that they were incompetent or were hijacked by other agencies, though the turn of events does seem to me a little too fortuitous for the G7 nations and banks involved to really believe this. The notion that they were motivated by "first world colonialist greed" is also reasonable, though I submit that globalisation is also the logical final objective of colonialism.

These aside, I don't know of any other likely explanations for that which has occurred but I'm happy to listen if you have another.

Whether such theories exist or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, you need evidence to prove a theory right. You can't go on to assume it's correct just because it's possible or just because it has no competition.

Belz,

You stated quite clearly that "There's only one SOUND explanation", yet, when challenged to articulate it, you squirm around in rhetoric trying to wriggle out of stating a definite case. Are you aware that doing this simply makes you seem scared of taking a position? If I'm wrong about something I'll bloody say so. If I change my position I'll say so. You can't be involved in debating and do otherwise.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

These aside, I don't know of any other likely explanations for that which has occurred but I'm happy to listen if you have another.

You guys give me headaches. What part of the word "hypothetical" do you not understand ?

You stated quite clearly that "There's only one SOUND explanation", yet, when challenged to articulate it, you squirm around in rhetoric trying to wriggle out of stating a definite case.

I didn't "squirm" out of anything because I never claimed that I would provide that explanation. All I said, clearly, and repeatedly, was that no matter if you have an explanation that fits the facts, there are many other possible explanations (is that better than "hypothetical" ?) that also fit the facts, and that the only way to know which one is the right one is to use evidence. This means that you NEED evidence to convince anyone here that your claims are correct.

But you have consistently dodged THAT bullet. Who's squirming, now ?

re you aware that doing this simply makes you seem scared of taking a position? If I'm wrong about something I'll bloody say so.

I have. You are wrong.

If I change my position I'll say so.

I won't be holding my breath. You seem emotionally invested in your opinions.

 

[Nick227]

Science works, Nick. Philosophy for the most part (as measured by page count) does not. That's why Whitehead could say what he did. I personally see it as a scathing indictment on philosophy as a whole, not a compliment to Plato.

Hi PM,

Science is great.

But the Greek philosophers appreciated that the objective study of relationships between phenomena in the outside world needed to balanced by an inner subjective study of the ideas, concepts, and mental states that could create this objectivisation - self-study. History records that Aristotle taught esoterica to his students in the morning and exoterica in the afternoon.

This sense of balance has been lost in our age. Objectivity proceeds from assumptions but most scientists are not even aware of this. Science can get people on the moon, facilitate rapid communication across the world, build bridges and highways, and make it so you can get great coffee even in London, but it inevitably leaves one with the same core of unanswered questions one started with - who am I, what am I doing here, what's my purpose? The quest for knowledge in this manner finally fails to satisfy, because it is not balanced by the inner quest.

We know what Plato thought. He thought there were five elements, which matched up somehow with the five regular polyhedra. He thought that things in the physical realm were reflections of some mystical ideal. Plato rejected democracy as unworkable. Plato was wrong.

I'm no big fan of philosophy but for me someone who believes, as if I recall correctly you do, that "I am my thoughts" is not in such a great position to comment authoritatively on it. Apologies if I have you mixed up with someone else.

Most would ridicule it because it is ridiculous. What exactly is this irrecoverable insight that allows our infinitely ineffective masters to fail to rule us from deep within their impenetrable penumbra?

The path to authentic self-knowledge cannot be followed through science alone, because the knowledge it gives finally does not satisfy the craving that started the search, once the craving for self-awarenss has begun in earnest. To pursue self-knowledge deeper you have to want to, and you have to trust. In this culture which adores science but ridicules mystical philosophy there is a lot of scope for those who have followed both paths to advance through the doorways where the sceptical scientist cannot go, and onto the lands beyond. And in these realms you will find the illuminati!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

You guys give me headaches. What part of the word "hypothetical" do you not understand ?

Belz,

You're probably getting a headache from changing your perspective so often. If you look at the situation with a need for hard evidence, you're not going to find this. I stated this right at the beginning of my postings on this thread. I said that the interpretation of events could validly be considered a covert plan to further globalisation. There are perhaps a couple of other likely possibilities to explain it.

When faced with the proposition that the interpretation is highly valid, and yet not the only one, and by its nature hard to prove or falsify, you and several other forum members seem simply unable to deal with this truth. It's like there's some knee-jerk reaction which just kicks in and says "ask him to prove it, ask him to prove it." It just goes around and around because right at the beginning I stated that the evidence was circumstantial.

I didn't "squirm" out of anything because I never claimed that I would provide that explanation.

Yet more wriggling! You said "There's only one SOUND explanation." To me you are clearly implying that you know what explanation is, else how could you know it's the "one SOUND" one?

All I said, clearly, and repeatedly, was that no matter if you have an explanation that fits the facts, there are many other possible explanations (is that better than "hypothetical" ?) that also fit the facts, and that the only way to know which one is the right one is to use evidence. This means that you NEED evidence to convince anyone here that your claims are correct.

But I completely stated this position at the beginning, and many times since. Actually, I doubt there are "many other possible explanations." I've seen one or two.

I will cut to the chase and tell you what's going on. You simply cannot deal with the possibility that covert globalisation is happening. As soon as the possibility enters your awareness it is thrown out with the words "prove it, prove it." This is the only explanation I can offer for apparent phenomena. Were you able to examine it you would say something like "OK, it could be covert globalisation, but personally I believe it's actually this, or this." Or "OK, it could be globalisation, the circumstantial evidence fits the model, but for me personally I'm going to need stronger evidence before I'm going to consider going there."

For me, what this thread is clearly demonstrating is that the majority of forum members who have taken part in it simply cannot deal with the possibility that the CT is correct. In a simple case where.....
- all the evidence is circumstantial,
- where it's very hard to definitively prove or falsify any position,
- and yet where there are only a couple of other reasonable explanations to account for events,
.....it seems not one person can admit the possibility that the CT is correct.

Nick

 

[chipmunk stew]

The path to authentic self-knowledge cannot be followed through science alone, because the knowledge it gives finally does not satisfy the craving that started the search, once the craving for self-awarenss has begun in earnest. To pursue self-knowledge deeper you have to want to, and you have to trust. In this culture which adores science but ridicules mystical philosophy there is a lot of scope for those who have followed both paths to advance through the doorways where the sceptical scientist cannot go, and onto the lands beyond. And in these realms you will find the illuminati!

NO SMOKING. NO SPITTING.
THE MGT.

 

[Belz...]

But the Greek philosophers appreciated that the objective study of relationships between phenomena in the outside world needed to balanced by an inner subjective study of the ideas, concepts, and mental states that could create this objectivisation - self-study.

Wasn't that 2400 years ago ?

This sense of balance has been lost in our age.

You're opening a nice door to woo-woo land. Why the hell would I want my feelings to enter the equation when dealing with questions about reality ?

Objectivity proceeds from assumptions but most scientists are not even aware of this.

I smell solipsism.

The quest for knowledge in this manner finally fails to satisfy, because it is not balanced by the inner quest.

What the hell are you babbling about ?

You're probably getting a headache from changing your perspective so often.

It's called being open-minded. You should try it.

If you look at the situation with a need for hard evidence, you're not going to find this.

That's a very subtle way to say that you HAVE no evidence, and that you simply WANT to believe in that sooper-sekrit organisation. I don't CARE what you want to believe. I care for the truth.

When faced with the proposition that the interpretation is highly valid, and yet not the only one, and by its nature hard to prove or falsify, you and several other forum members seem simply unable to deal with this truth.

You're not making sense. I've agreed with you that it "fits" the facts. But it has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

It's like there's some knee-jerk reaction which just kicks in and says "ask him to prove it, ask him to prove it."

Yes, it is. Anything wrong with that ?

If you're just here to speculate, then fine. Don't expect me to get all excited about your fantasies, though.

Yet more wriggling! You said "There's only one SOUND explanation." To me you are clearly implying that you know what explanation is, else how could you know it's the "one SOUND" one?

You're still making stuff up. To clarify: I wasn't implying that I knew what the right explanation was. I said that, among all the possible ones, there was only ONE true explanation. Why is that so hard for you to understand ?

Actually, I doubt there are "many other possible explanations." I've seen one or two.

And how could you tell which one is correct ?

I will cut to the chase and tell you what's going on. You simply cannot deal with the possibility that covert globalisation is happening.

You also fail in psychology. I have no trouble dealing with that possibility. I have a LOT of trouble dealing with its probability or its truth, because there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

As soon as the possibility enters your awareness it is thrown out with the words "prove it, prove it." This is the only explanation I can offer for apparent phenomena.

I suggest some REAL psychology lessons for you.

Were you able to examine it you would say something like "OK, it could be covert globalisation, but personally I believe it's actually this, or this."

What is it with woo-woos and belief ? I don't CARE what I would believe in. Show me the evidence, or admit it's sheer speculation.

Or "OK, it could be globalisation, the circumstantial evidence fits the model, but for me personally I'm going to need stronger evidence before I'm going to consider going there."

What ? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!!!

 

[Bell]

<snip> but I can't blame Plato for not predicting the internet.

The NWO works on a need to know basis. Plato didn't need to know.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hi PM,

Science is great.

But the Greek philosophers appreciated that the objective study of relationships between phenomena in the outside world needed to balanced by an inner subjective study of the ideas, concepts, and mental states that could create this objectivisation - self-study. History records that Aristotle taught esoterica to his students in the morning and exoterica in the afternoon.

Change the word "appreciated" to "believed", and I'll agree with you. The question is, were they right?

And the answer appears to be, largely, no. Philosophy is not without value overall, but the vast majority of what is written about philosophy is rubbish. Particularly if you look at what pre-scientific philosophers (and far too many modern philosophers) thought about how the mind works. Science has told us far more about that than philosophy ever could.

This sense of balance has been lost in our age. Objectivity proceeds from assumptions but most scientists are not even aware of this.

And you can back up this claim with statistics?

Science can get people on the moon, facilitate rapid communication across the world, build bridges and highways, and make it so you can get great coffee even in London, but it inevitably leaves one with the same core of unanswered questions one started with - who am I, what am I doing here, what's my purpose? The quest for knowledge in this manner finally fails to satisfy, because it is not balanced by the inner quest.

Actually, science answers all these questions far better than philosophy ever could.

I'm no big fan of philosophy but for me someone who believes, as if I recall correctly you do, that "I am my thoughts" is not in such a great position to comment authoritatively on it. Apologies if I have you mixed up with someone else.

No, that sounds like me. Why do you think there is a problem with that statement?

The path to authentic self-knowledge cannot be followed through science alone, because the knowledge it gives finally does not satisfy the craving that started the search, once the craving for self-awarenss has begun in earnest.

That's entirely irrelevat. Science gives testable answers to questions of fact. If that does not "satisfy the craving", then that's your problem.

To pursue self-knowledge deeper you have to want to, and you have to trust.

No. No you don't. All you need is a working hypothesis.

In this culture which adores science but ridicules mystical philosophy there is a lot of scope for those who have followed both paths to advance through the doorways where the sceptical scientist cannot go, and onto the lands beyond. And in these realms you will find the illuminati!

Nick, you have not the slightest shred of evidence of any such thing. This is nothing more nor less than delusion.

 

[PixyMisa]

NO SMOKING. NO SPITTING.
THE MGT.

Nice. But Nick probably thinks that was either a history text or an instruction manual.

 

[PixyMisa]

When faced with the proposition that the interpretation is highly valid, and yet not the only one, and by its nature hard to prove or falsify, you and several other forum members seem simply unable to deal with this truth. It's like there's some knee-jerk reaction which just kicks in and says "ask him to prove it, ask him to prove it." It just goes around and around because right at the beginning I stated that the evidence was circumstantial.

Nick, your hypothesis is worthless because it fits any set of facts.

For me, what this thread is clearly demonstrating is that the majority of forum members who have taken part in it simply cannot deal with the possibility that the CT is correct.

Then you can't have read anything but your own posts.

In a simple case where.....
- all the evidence is circumstantial,
- where it's very hard to definitively prove or falsify any position,
- and yet where there are only a couple of other reasonable explanations to account for events,
.....it seems not one person can admit the possibility that the CT is correct.

No. Completely wrong.

If you can't tell the difference between a situation where the hypothesis is true and a situation where it is false, we reject the hypothesis not be cause it is false but because it is useless. Your NWO conspiracy does not, cannot ever, tell us anything about the world. It is the CT version of Deism.

 

[thesyntaxera]

That's directly measurable. Show me the numbers. (By the way, the 2nd world no longer exists, so I don't care a whole lot about what happens there.)

Fair enough. Be more specific with what numbers you would like to see represented. In the future I will refer to them as former soviet satellite countries...or whichever term suits you..

False premise.

Accurate depiction.

I prefer to work with facts. You're using metaphors.

I'm analogizing for the sake of brevity.

Uh, by definition, that won't work. You said that "there are a host of possibilities that are never explored". If it's part of an economic theory, that means it's been explored. So... Like what?

No by your definition it wouldn't work. I am no theorist when it comes to these matters, I tend to look at the consequences. Why not just look some up yourself...
The suggestion I made is the most obvious one, the details would have to be worked out by those actually writing the legislation.

Sure. Like what? And what evidence do you have that this proposed intervention does something other than make things worse?

We are already stuck with worse. If tacking on a little restriction in order to preserve the rights of people who don't fit into your prefered economic model does anything I doubt it could be "worse" than what we are dealing with now.

Nope. That's not what I said at all.

No...it's just what you advocate.

I noted that it is impossible to eliminate economic inequality... Or at least, the only way to do so is to kill everyone. It is possible to mitigate inequality, but this has been shown to damage economic growth in proportion to the extent of the endeavour. Thus communism, which provides perfect equality (well, in theory) in the present at the expense of any future whatsoever.

Thats just your nonexpert opinion talking there.

The problem with smaller-scale socialism and protectionism (two things that no country in the world is free of) is more subtle, and comes back to the law of unexpected consequences. For example, the observation that you can't eliminate poverty by giving people money.

If only the world were as black and white as you see it...what unexpected consequences could arise out of reducing the general desperation and malaise of the vast majority of the working poor?

Hmm. Hardly groundbreaking. Well understood, I would have thought. The rule of law is fundamental to economic development. Poverty and corruption go hand in hand; the question is the direction of causality.

Yep...and the causality is simple to identify, except for some reason it seems to escape you...

I don't see that you have even addressed the question.

I did, it would just require you to turn off michael savage for a second and read a few short books that outline it rather succinctly.

Yeah, I've read it. It's a well-meaning but ultimately inane document. Articles 1 and 2 are a bit waffly. 3 to 14 are fine. 15 is kinda weird. 16.1 and 16.2 are fine; 16.3 is weird. 17 is my main argument here. 18 to 21 are fine. 22 is Marxist cant. 23 is weird again, half Adam Smith and half socialist ideology. 24 is utter nonsense. Paid holidays are a fundamental human right? I haven't had a paid holiday since 1994. 25 and 26 are simply delusional, 27 meaningless, 28 is self-referential wish-fulfilment, and 29.3 is possibly the highest concentration of hypocrisy I have ever come across. Burn the second half and you'd have something worthwhile.

More of your opinion. How is it that human rights are inane again?

The second half of the Declaration is fundamentally incompatible with the first half. Hardly my fault.

Yet more opinion.

Really? And who, exactly, is doing this?

People who share the same attitudes and beliefs that you do apparently.

No.

Yes actually.

Literally raped? I presume you aren't accusing industry of having unconsensual sexual intercourse with these countries, so you must mean that they are seizing these countries' assets by force. No money involved, huh?

Might I ask, whose army is doing this?

I was refering more to the ecological and social problems that arise...and it might as well be literally rape in the true meaning of the word..because that has happened too in some instances.

If they are not slaves, if they are there by choice, even if they only made that choice because all the alternatives were worse, then that is still freedom. Freedom doesn't mean that nothing bad will happen to you. Sometimes all the choices available are bad ones.

So, if someone were to place a gun to their head and tell them do "this" or die, is that still a choice? Freedom isn't just being able choose between the lesser of multiple evils just because someone else tells you to...

And why would you think that?

Gee, I wonder.

 

[PixyMisa]

Fair enough. Be more specific with what numbers you would like to see represented. In the future I will refer to them as former soviet satellite countries...or whichever term suits you.

Fine.

Show that the economies of third world countries that engage in free trade have been declining. Then show that this is due to manipulation by first world countries.

Accurate depiction.

Nope. The US government can't even control the terms of trade between the US and any single foreign country, much less dictate the economic conditions for the entire third world.

I'm analogizing for the sake of brevity.

At the cost of accuracy - or even meaning.

No by your definition it wouldn't work.

No, by any definition it won't work.

I am no theorist when it comes to these matters, I tend to look at the consequences. Why not just look some up yourself...

You're not looking at consequences. You are merely looking at data points. You have no idea what those data points are the consequences of, so you can't validly describe them as consequences at all.

The suggestion I made is the most obvious one, the details would have to be worked out by those actually writing the legislation.

The suggestion you made is vague to the point of absurdity.

We are already stuck with worse.

Again, that doesn't mean anything. The situation now is less than ideal. "Worse" is relative. Worse than what?

If tacking on a little restriction in order to preserve the rights of people who don't fit into your prefered economic model does anything I doubt it could be "worse" than what we are dealing with now.

What restriction are you proposing, to preserve what rights?

No...it's just what you advocate.

Since it's not what I said, it can't be what I advocate. So again, you are simply ascribing to me views I do not hold.

Thats just your nonexpert opinion talking there.

No, this is a fundamental outcome of economics. Trade doesn't inherently provide equal value to both parties; all it requires is that both parties benefit. (Because if they don't, they won't be party to the trade.) Since trade will not preserve equality, the only way to maintain equality is to prevent trade. And the only way to do that...

If only the world were as black and white as you see it...what unexpected consequences could arise out of reducing the general desperation and malaise of the vast majority of the working poor?

Reduced private-sector investment.
Reduced economic growth.
Increased crime.
Increased poverty.
Increased inflation.
Increased unemployment.

Every one of these has been observed and correlated with anti-poverty programs.

Yep...and the causality is simple to identify, except for some reason it seems to escape you...

Yes, it is clear. Corruption leads to poverty. This is well understood, and is a major problem in many third-world nations.

I did, it would just require you to turn off michael savage for a second and read a few short books that outline it rather succinctly.

Who's Michael Savage? I've heard the name, but that's about it. If I have to read books, that implies that you haven't addressed the question.

More of your opinion. How is it that human rights are inane again?

Read what I said.

Human rights are fundamental. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is fundamentally inane.

It claims that paid holidays are a fundamental human right. This is ludicrous. Paid holidays are no more than a common structural aspect of 20th century employment contracts for salaried employees. I've been a contractor for years; I'm now self-employed. As I already said, I haven't had a paid holiday since 1994. There are tens of millions of people in the same position. We're not being denied our rights because the very notion that it is a right is stupid.

Yet more opinion.

Nope. To choose a single example, if the freedom to choose how you trade your goods and services is fundamental, mandatory paid holidays are a direct infringement upon that right.

People who share the same attitudes and beliefs that you do apparently.

Try again.

Yes actually.

If you claim this, then you can show the causal chain, yes? Go right ahead.

I was refering more to the ecological and social problems that arise...and it might as well be literally rape in the true meaning of the word..because that has happened too in some instances.

You mean, the third world countries are making some bad choices - as everyone does - and suffering the consequences - as everyone does?

I don't contest that, but nor does it support your argument.

So, if someone were to place a gun to their head and tell them do "this" or die, is that still a choice?

Are you suggesting that this is happening?

Remember what the fundamental freedoms really are. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Threatening people with death is a violation of this right.

Do you claim that this is happening? Where, when, by whom, to whom?

Gee, I wonder.

Yeah, me too.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Show that the economies of third world countries that engage in free trade have been declining. Then show that this is due to manipulation by first world countries

Pick a third world country that has strong a strong neoliberal influence economically if you want to get specific. In general here is this:
http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v13/2/imf.html

100 countries have undergone grave economic decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes 20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993. Meanwhile, according to the United Nations Development Program’s 1998 Human Development Report, the 15 richest people in the world enjoy combined assets that exceed the total annual gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa. At the end of the 1990’s, the wealth of the three richest individuals on earth surpassed the combined annual GDP of the 48 least developed countries.

Nope. The US government can't even control the terms of trade between the US and any single foreign country, much less dictate the economic conditions for the entire third world.

Oh I think they can, and do actually.

At the cost of accuracy - or even meaning.

In your opinion.

No, by any definition it won't work.

Still your opinion, but if your so confident prove it.

You're not looking at consequences. You are merely looking at data points. You have no idea what those data points are the consequences of, so you can't validly describe them as consequences at all.

Actually, you don't know what I am looking at, so this is speculation. The consequences are obvious.

The suggestion you made is vague to the point of absurdity.

Like I said, I am not a theorist, and you are perfectly capable of answering this question on your own if you are genuinely curious.

Again, that doesn't mean anything. The situation now is less than ideal. "Worse" is relative. Worse than what?

"Less than ideal" only downplays the significance. I might use the word atrocious also.

What restriction are you proposing, to preserve what rights?

Namely the right to life liberty and security of person. Didn't I already tell you the restriction I was proposing and didn't you tell me that it was too vague.

Since it's not what I said, it can't be what I advocate. So again, you are simply ascribing to me views I do not hold.

You are here now, defending the neoliberal agenda, so are you saying you are not advocating it? If not then what are you doing?

No, this is a fundamental outcome of economics. Trade doesn't inherently provide equal value to both parties; all it requires is that both parties benefit. (Because if they don't, they won't be party to the trade.) Since trade will not preserve equality, the only way to maintain equality is to prevent trade. And the only way to do that...

More of that black or white thinking...I see, it's either this or that...it is possible to trade and maintain equality. I might have to just chalk this on up to cultural conditioning on your part.

Reduced private-sector investment.
Reduced economic growth.
Increased crime.
Increased poverty.
Increased inflation.
Increased unemployment.

Every one of these has been observed and correlated with anti-poverty programs.

And who is running these anti poverty programs?

Yes, it is clear. Corruption leads to poverty. This is well understood, and is a major problem in many third-world nations.

And who is doing the corrupting?

Who's Michael Savage? I've heard the name, but that's about it. If I have to read books, that implies that you haven't addressed the question.

Sorry, that Savage comment was way below the belt...I should be so quick to align you textually with someone like that...

Human rights are fundamental. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is fundamentally inane.

So do you or don't you believe in human rights? If they are fundamental then why do you defend a system of economic governance that ultimately reduces peoples human rights.

It claims that paid holidays are a fundamental human right. This is ludicrous. Paid holidays are no more than a common structural aspect of 20th century employment contracts for salaried employees. I've been a contractor for years; I'm now self-employed. As I already said, I haven't had a paid holiday since 1994. There are tens of millions of people in the same position. We're not being denied our rights because the very notion that it is a right is stupid.

Well, I can't produce a statistic for you, but I am willing to wager that there are more salaried employees in the world than self employed one's that would love to have mandatory payed vacation similar to say sweden...you should have one too. The rest is your opinion again.

Nope. To choose a single example, if the freedom to choose how you trade your goods and services is fundamental, mandatory paid holidays are a direct infringement upon that right.

Who is specifically having their right's violated by that?

You mean, the third world countries are making some bad choices - as everyone does - and suffering the consequences - as everyone does?

Thats not even close to whats going on, but nice try.

Are you suggesting that this is happening?

Yes.

Remember what the fundamental freedoms really are. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Threatening people with death is a violation of this right.

And yet it happens.

Do you claim that this is happening? Where, when, by whom, to whom?

Yes, this is happening...it happened 150 times in columbia, or did you not read that article I posted?

 

[8den]

NO SMOKING. NO SPITTING.
THE MGT.

Overall there is a smell of fried onions.

 

[Belz...]

I'm analogizing for the sake of brevity.

That's not the point of an analogy.

Thats just your nonexpert opinion talking there.

And you're an expert ?

If only the world were as black and white as you see it...

I was refering more to the ecological and social problems that arise...and it might as well be literally rape in the true meaning of the word

Nice backpedaling, Syntax.

 

[Belz...]

In your opinion.

You seem to like saying that.

Actually, you don't know what I am looking at, so this is speculation. The consequences are obvious.

In your opinion.

it is possible to trade and maintain equality.

How ?

So do you or don't you believe in human rights? If they are fundamental then why do you defend a system of economic governance that ultimately reduces peoples human rights.

Sounds like an ad hominem's coming.

 

[Nick227]

Change the word "appreciated" to "believed", and I'll agree with you. The question is, were they right?

That question can only be answered by individual subjective study. To a mind conditioned to believe that only objective analysis has value this will be an inadequate answer.

And the answer appears to be, largely, no. Philosophy is not without value overall, but the vast majority of what is written about philosophy is rubbish. Particularly if you look at what pre-scientific philosophers (and far too many modern philosophers) thought about how the mind works. Science has told us far more about that than philosophy ever could.

And you can back up this claim with statistics?

Well, we've been in this area before. Objectivity proceeds from core assumptions about the nature of the self. It assumes a finite observer. I submit that there is nothing in your a priori experience of being alive that can substantiate this premise. You cannot demonstrate possession of body, feelings or thought. It is all supposition arising through the experience usually refered to as identification, the experience that allows us to create the unprovable notion that we have a personal identity. It is a construct. It is pure supposition, and an absolutely not verifiable hypothesis. (I'm sure you recall what your position on those is!) This is not true of the phenomena themselves, but it is of the premises from which objectivity proceeds.

To most scientists this might seem like almost an idiotic point, so widely is this assumption taken without question. Yet, in the area we are discussing it is supremely relevant. This is why Socrates stated that what made him different from other philosophers was not what he knew, but that he was at least aware that he knew nothing - the others had not yet grasped this point.

No, that sounds like me. Why do you think there is a problem with that statement?

So you're saying you do not experience thought? Rather that you are thought?

That's entirely irrelevat. Science gives testable answers to questions of fact. If that does not "satisfy the craving", then that's your problem.


No. No you don't. All you need is a working hypothesis.


Nick, you have not the slightest shred of evidence of any such thing. This is nothing more nor less than delusion.

Then stop discussing. If that is your earnest belief.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick, your hypothesis is worthless because it fits any set of facts.

It does not fit any set of facts. It is, I submit, an entirely valid construction to account for events that have occurred, particularly when one considers the lack of a coherent OT.

Then you can't have read anything but your own posts.

Show me where a CT opposer has admitted that it's potentially valid. They can't go there emotionally. That's my interpretation. Their minds have developed a rigidity to keep out unwanted ideas and they figure that if you just stay rigid, never examine the premises that allow objectivity, then their lives will stay ok. Maybe they will.

If you can't tell the difference between a situation where the hypothesis is true and a situation where it is false, we reject the hypothesis not be cause it is false but because it is useless.

Is that a quoted position of the forum? I'm interested. What if there's no OT?

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

You seem to like saying that.

I don't know if I say I "like" saying it...I just use it where applicable.

In your opinion.

Actually, it is a fact that PM doesn't know "what I am looking" but they and you are welcome to guess.

How ?

Well, as I said I am no theorist, so my answers will be limited. However, an idea that can be applied is the idea that profits are not the highest priority. Other priorities that could be addressed are the availability of a living wage, access to health care, clean and safe working conditions...perhaps also the ability to unionize in order to protect what you have and guarantee that you won't be exploited in the future. These are all things we take for granted working in the US for example...and the result is many american companies move their business to third world countries where these basic things are grossly lacking....but hey thats free trade right!

That's not the point of an analogy.

Ok then.

And you're an expert ?

I never claimed that. PM openly confessed that they weren't. I do happen to share a good portion of my life with some one who makes their living being well informed on the subject though, and as a result I have access to a fairly large collection of reading materials on the subject.