Jesus Appalled By Americans?
POSTED BY: Mavourneen
UPDATED: Monday, April 9, 2007 23:32
VIEWED: 11915
PAGE 13 of 15
Capitalism is so productive you produced 3 times the number of posts you needed! Or did you outsource posting to China? Fess up or I'll set Lou Dobbs on you!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nah... I trusted my post to Microsoft!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
honestly, I think that yes he would bbe appalled, but then what about all the other countries in the world? what makes them so righteous? we are all human beings and capable of greater good and evil as well. whatever religion a person follows, it is not a public thing, it is a personal decision, do I think that they should allow prayer time in schools? HECK YEAH!! But like someone stated earlier in this topic, Prayer is used in ALL religions, therfore why does everyone assume that when people speak of prayer they mean to Jesus? This country is supposed to be for freedom of religion, so whatever one you follow be proud of it and see quiet prayer time as time between you and your God, whichever one it may be. :-P
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What about the Atheists?
Originally posted by XxKittenzxX:
whatever religion a person follows, it is not a public thing, it is a personal decision, do I think that they should allow prayer time in schools? HECK YEAH!! But like someone stated earlier in this topic, Prayer is used in ALL religions, therfore why does everyone assume that when people speak of prayer they mean to Jesus?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What about atheists?
Well, they can use the time
a) looking around and doing sociological studies on the nut-cases around them
b) working on homework, thus earning them higher GPA on the average
c) sleeping, being more rested for the next class or exam, thus earning a higher GPA
d) reading comics
Do I think special "prayer time" belongs in school? Well, does prayer time belong at work? IMHO, no. I was taught growing up, you can pray anywhere, any time, even if it's just a quick "Dear Jesus help me though this test" or "Poor fellow, I'll bring a coat for him tomorrow. In the meantime, may God look after him." Why do we need to set aside special time at school for prayer? If we really want to teach kids Xtian love, we have to change what society is telling them.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Geezer. Any comments?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what you mean to say is that capitalism has a genius for making work more productive.
Close. Countries with capitalist or semi-capitalist economies generally produce the highest individual wages and corporate net incomes for their governments to tax.
Quote:
...but capitalism is the first economic system that takes and avowed stand for self-interest and against charity.
I'm not sure "against" is quite the right word. Again, the capitalist and semi-capitalist countries are right at the top of the list for humanitarian aid, so the taxes paid by employees and corporations do fund quite a bit of charity. And capitalists, for whatever reason, do often spend bunches of their own money for charitable purposes.
Quote:
However, what you're allowed to do with that ownership varies with the temper of the times. If your rights as owner are highly restricted, then "ownership" takes on a different meaning.
Which is why I don't think we'll ever see the complete monopolistic system you fear.
Quote:
For example, most people think of Taiwan and Singapore as "capitalist" countries, but in fact about half the industries in Taiwan are government-owned, and Singapore is considered a "socialist miracle".
Actually, Singapore seems more like your Monopolistic economy. The goverment is the capitalist, and, rather than acting as a check, makes laws which support and protect its monopolistic enterprises.
Quote:
The main issue with capitalsim is that it inevitably reverts to monopolism because that is the most profitable form of business.
"Pure" capitalism, free from any outside influence, might do this. I think we both acknowledge that in the real world, such pure capitalism is unlikely to occur. there is always governmental or societial pressure which controls it.
Overall, I'd say that a capitalist republican (small R) or capitalist democratic (small D) socialist country has a better chance of 'tuning' its economy to provide for its people than any other type. Its up to the people to figure out how to accomplish this.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AFA Singapore is concerned, the term "capitalism" or "monopolism" doesn't apply to government-owned industry because government is not a PRIVATE owner. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but governments are subject to different pressures and controls than corporations.
Singapore, Taiwan, and China are all examples of not-exactly-capitalist economies, and they seem to be doing well.
I repeat: Capitalism is the first economic system that takes an avowed stand for self-interest and against charity. Do Adam Smith's "invisble hand" and social Darwinism ring any bells? AFA "humanitarain aid"- the biggest per capita donors tend to be those that do NOT practice "pure" capitalism. In those naitons the government takes a large role in wealth distribution, something that is anathema to died in the wool capitalists.
Capitalism reverts to monopolism even in the presence of inhibiting governmental pressures. There are two reasons for this:
In the USA, we follow the Golden Rule. (I'm sure you know what that is)
Multinationals face no equivalent antithetical governmental power. SO far, the only rules being made concerning international trade tend to be made by the multinationals for the multinationals, in cooperation with the large governments. You will not find, for example, much in the way of international trust-busting.
---------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Multinationals face no equivalent antithetical governmental power. SO far, the only rules being made concerning international trade tend to be made by the multinationals for the multinationals, in cooperation with the large governments. You will not find, for example, much in the way of international trust-busting.
You might ask Mr. Gates his opinion of the EU and trust-busting.
More on the other stuff later, as the yardwork calls.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While individual nations or regions may apply anti-monopoly laws indivudually, there is no international (ie cross-border, trans-oceanic) effort to rein in multinationals. Trade laws written under WTO only refer to trade. If anything, they tend to bolster the rights of multinationals vis a vis the individual nations by specifically eliminating where possible trade restrictions based on labor, environmental, or security concerns.
I cite this link in jest:
http://www.gatt.org
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME