[Herakles]

Originally Posted by Alan

Obviously you don't know enough about East Timor, so why even try to make a judgment on it?
The fight in East Timor was an internal war, with the UDT helped by both Indonesia and the United States solely for business interests. The UDT was conformed of the wealthy landowners of East Timor, sympathizing with Portuguese fascism and reactionary against the popular demand for land reform, because that's 'anti-capitalist'

Don't make assumptions, kiddo. You only hurt yourself.

Actually, I know quite a bit about the scuffle in ET. Indeed, you betray a lack of knowledge on the subject by classifying it as an simply "internal struggle". Indonesian forces invaded. Doesn't sound very internal.

The UDT would eventually form a (tenuous) alliance with Fretilin for independence from Indonesia.

Indeed, none of this matters to the argument. What the UDT wanted (which always seemed to be contradictory in one way or another) or what the US or Indonesia did is immaterial. That the Fretilin "reform" was largely a putsch of a weird Marxist/African psuedo-nationalist flavor doesn't matter. Capitalism is unconcerned with the piddling fisticuffs of nobody-nations--so long as they pose no physical threat to the citizens within whatever capitalist nation we are talking about. But there's the rub: there was no capitalist player in this dust-up. Nor would a capitalist nation seek to be involved in it. The US is not, and has not been for over a century, a capitalist nation.

Such is the source of many of our foreign and military policy blunders: believing that anything like this should matter to us in the long and then getting involved in it. The land reform proposed by the "independents" was indeed ridiculous and foolish, but they are not our children. Their destruction is their own problem.

Do you want to know what a proper capitalist response to the rile in East Timor would be? Thus: Well, looks mighty foolhardy to me--just keep out of our sandbox, kids.

http://www.urban.org/publications/306766.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/declkutt.htm
Let's not forget that a new house cost an average of $11,800 in the sixties, today it's at about $212,000; rent was $88 a month, and today it's an average of $1,200; and health insurance for a family was around $75 a month and today it is over $800. The minimum wage has increased sevenfold, but the cost of living has increased almost double that, being about 15 times more expensive while the dollar has less purchasing power.

Inflation is the culprit here. The inflationary policies of the Fed have destroyed the buying power of the dollar (which you mentioned). Inflation redistributes money from creditors to debtors. If I borrow $1,000 from you and in the interim of the borrowing and the repaying, the government goes on another printing spree, the purchasing power of the $1,000 I repay is less than that of the $1,000 I borrowed. And who is the biggest debtor in the country? The Federal-fucking-government.

Do let’s not fall into the trap of thinking of inflation as merely a rise in prices. It is the government’s destruction of the buying power of legal tender. Now, I’m not denying that prices have risen a bit in the subsequent half-century, but the overwhelming culprits is, and has been for decades, government-induced inflation.

In a capitalist society, there is no Fed and the only people who have any distinguishable effect on purchasing power are counterfeiters (which the Fed essentially is).

That production keeps increasing and GDP is much much higher, while the population sees no fruits out of their labor.
In my own Mexico, since the implementation of NAFTA, a wet dream of capitalism, an end to trade barriers in the northern hemisphere of the continent, exports have tripled and yet workers have only seen a nine dollar increase in their wages PER MONTH.
This is a trend that never changes. Less business regulations always leads to further inequality and minimal wage increments of the average worker; and these wage raises are rendered meaningless when accounting to inflation, therefore rendering real wages lower than before.

Actually, NAFTA is not a capitalist wet dream. Any capitalist (especially any capitalist economist) worth his salt knows that NAFTA is a sham. I don’t disagree that NAFTA has been an unmitigated failure. But NAFTA is “subsidized” free-trade, which, actually, isn’t really free-trade at all. Just more bureaucratic nonsense.

That's just a lie. Literally. What the fuck, you think the eight-year neo-con administration we had has been the biggest epoch of regulation?

You think that the New Right is a friend of capitalism? They are religious nitwits every bit as eager to seem as “compassionate” as any overzealous leftist.

Federal spending rose 68% under Bush. Twice as much as under Clinton. Farms bills, health and school subsidies up 44% and 47%, respectively. The Rx drug bill that will become an over $1 trillion liability in a decade. Sweeping grabs of executive power in national security and foreign affairs. Faith-based initiatives. No Child Left Behind Act. Many other incoherent foreign and domestic policies abounded. All under GW Bush. This man was no friend of capitalism.

I’m curious what you think neo-cons are. No one believed a word that came out of Bush’s mush-mouth for 8 years, why do you all believe him when he says he’s a “free-market guy”? (Or that he even knows what one is?)

Oh yeah? Ok, I'll invent my own definitions too.
Communism is all about free speech.
That's right.
Neither of the two has dick to do with economic theories. It's all about this I'm saying.

In fact, it has everything to do with economics. Individuals must have their right to gain and maintain the fruits of their efforts and that right must be protected lest you wish to invite either open civil war or open totalitarianism. All of which have a fundamental impact on economics.

This is a rather technical point, but it must be made. As to definitions: they identify the nature of the cognitive units subsumed under a given concept. That is their purpose. Words symbolize concepts, but they are not themselves the equivalent of concepts. So, it would be improper to say that definitions are the meanings of words.

Definitions’ cognitive role is to allow man to organize and integrate conceptual knowledge in a proper logical (that is, hierarchical chain. It also allows us to differentiate between other concepts. A definition must show the nature of the, the most critical and fundamental characteristics without which it would not be what it is.

So, in order for a definition to be objective, it must distinguish those essential characteristics of all the units subsumed under a particular concept. It must utilize all available knowledge to do this. So, my definition of capitalism does exactly this: I distill down the must distinguishing, essential and fundamental existential units under the concept. The genus: it is a socio-economic system. The differentia: the socio-economic that recognizes and respects individual rights (life, liberty, property, etc.) and all that is corollary to this.

The government's proper function in a capitalist society is the protection of property. Even Ayn Rand knows this.

Which is one of its functions, yes. Given that individuals have a right to their lives, they therefore have a right to sustain that life, which requires that they have the right to keep the fruits of their labor.

I was not denying this. Are you completely incapable of thinking in principles?


QUOTE=Igor;555752]Hi, Alan.

I, too, like Ayn Rand's style of writing. As English was her second language, she wrote very skillful prose. I recall in The Fountainhead that she described seagulls in the morning as bits of grey newspaper floating in the wind (though phrased better than I just then).

However, I don't care much for her philosophy. I think she underrates the importance of altruism.[/quote]

The question here is: what is your conception of altruism? And what do you believe Rand's was?

Originally Posted by Alan

As en English major you should understand that ignoring her cult-like philosophy, her works have very little literary value.

"Cult-like" is a common smear. Would you like to define that anti-concept and answer how exactly an arch-individualist commanded cultists?

The sole reason she is famous is through word-of-mouth around millionaire big shots that wanted to rationalize their not giving a shit about their workers.

Is that why her books sell hundreds of thousands of copies every year?