DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on November 05, 2008, 08:37:45 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-wins-why-all-americ_b_141159.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-wins-why-all-americ_b_141159.html)
very good editorial
Demagogues stoke fears - - any kind of fear - - to win elections. Statesmen remind a nation of the kind of place it should be and appeal to our better impulses. The demagogues can win a few, but ultimately their hollowness and lack of promise become impossible to hide any longer and they are rejected by the people.
-
Demagogues stoke fears - - any kind of fear - - to win elections. Statesmen remind a nation of the kind of place it should be and appeal to our better impulses. The demagogues can win a few, but ultimately their hollowness and lack of promise become impossible to hide any longer and they are rejected by the people.
=============================================
Amen to that.
I hope I never hear Obama say "I am the Decider", and "I have earned political capital, which I will now spend", and simpleminded rot of that sort.
Juniorbush has been an anti-president: if you want to see how to do it right, check out Juniorbush, then do the opposite.
-
Demagogues stoke fears - - any kind of fear - - to win elections. Statesmen remind a nation of the kind of place it should be and appeal to our better impulses. The demagogues can win a few, but ultimately their hollowness and lack of promise become impossible to hide any longer and they are rejected by the people.
=============================================
Amen to that.
I hope I never hear Obama say "I am the Decider", and "I have earned political capital, which I will now spend", and simpleminded rot of that sort.
Juniorbush has been an anti-president: if you want to see how to do it right, check out Juniorbush, then do the opposite.
What policy of the previous President do you expect to see reversed?
What staffers do you expect to be carryed over?
-
I expect to see troops leave Iraq much sooner than they would have otherwise.
I would be surprised to see any of the Cabinet retained for any major period of time. No administration does this. I imagine political appointees will be replaced, and civil service peple will mostly be retained.
I expect to see some action on a healthcare bill soon, as well as a revision of the income tax rates.
I expect that the current Cuban embargo will be relaxed a lot.
-
I expect to see troops leave Iraq much sooner than they would have otherwise.
I would be surprised to see any of the Cabinet retained for any major period of time. No administration does this. I imagine political appointees will be replaced, and civil service peple will mostly be retained.
I expect to see some action on a healthcare bill soon, as well as a revision of the income tax rates.
I expect that the current Cuban embargo will be relaxed a lot.
How can we know when they would have been recalled? Most of the Bush objective is accomplished , it might be a good time to recall them this month. Woud it be mean spirited to remove the US presence in Iraq two months before BHO becomes president?
Clinton saved Greenspan , Bush saved three Clinton appointees.
The whole Civil Service will be kept , this was Chester Authors reform , so that the spoils system doesn't make the whole civil service change out every four years. The Civil Service Reform could be seen as enableing the growth of the government to the size it is.
I expect to see some action on a healthcare bill soon, as well as a revision of the income tax rates.
Good luck with that. I hope it isn't the tragic mistake I think it is.
The Cuban Embargo isn't changeing without a big event first , Fidel dying , the Cuban government accepting capitolist principals or something like that. Nixon could go to China , but LBJ could not have , no one with a socialist cloud over his head can go to Cuba before Cuba repents of its sins. If Reagan or Bush 43 had seen an advantage in dropping the embargo they could have done it , BHO has not got the chops .
-
The embargo serves no purpose, and moat Cubans now oppose it in the form it was enforced by Juniorbush. No Cuban can visit Cuba more than once over three years, and no one can send more than a small amount of money to specific close relatives.
Of course, I know people who have made three trips a year. All you have to do is to bribe some missionary church to name you a missionary. This they are happy to do for $200 or so.The reason Castro is still in power is the embargo. It keeps the Castros in power, and supports a small number of swindlers, like the people with bogus churches. The Democrats carried FL without the rightwing Cubans, and there is no reason to suck up to
them any longer. Wait and see. Obama will change the embargo for sure.
And please, the embargo is not about "democracy". It's about colonialism, and no one likes colonialism more than the Republican oligarchy. It's the family business, it's what they do.
-
The embargo serves no purpose, and moat Cubans now oppose it in the form it was enforced by Juniorbush. No Cuban can visit Cuba more than once over three years, and no one can send more than a small amount of money to specific close relatives.
Of course, I know people who have made three trips a year. All you have to do is to bribe some missionary church to name you a missionary. This they are happy to do for $200 or so.The reason Castro is still in power is the embargo. It keeps the Castros in power, and supports a small number of swindlers, like the people with bogus churches. The Democrats carried FL without the rightwing Cubans, and there is no reason to suck up to
them any longer. Wait and see. Obama will change the embargo for sure.
And please, the embargo is not about "democracy". It's about colonialism, and no one likes colonialism more than the Republican oligarchy. It's the family business, it's what they do.
If Cuba was a Democracy it would be impossible for them to exile a third of their people to a foreign nation where they might become in important voteing block.
-
<<What policy of the previous President do you expect to see reversed?>>
That's a very tough question. First of all, I think Obama will have to pick his battles. He can't realistically expect to reverse all the mistakes of the Bush administration and he's too smart to try. I don't happen to think, given the popular vote split, that he has a particularly lavish mandate here.
One policy that will change from the outset is "war as the first resort," "pre-emptive war," or any other way that the Bush administration war policies can be described. This is something nobody will "see reversed" because it's a negative - - nobody will "see" the wars that Obama doesn't start. But it's very important (a) that there IS a President in office who people can trust not to start unprovoked wars of aggression and (b) that the rest of the world understands this. It will immediately begin to reverse the tide of international anger and rage against the U.S. that under Bush has reached record proportions.
One reversal I would hope to see immediately would be a total reversal of the torture policies of the Bush administration. An unambiguous, blanket prohibition of all forms of torture, including cruel and unusual punishments, with stiff penalties for abusers, if put into effect immediately, would go a long way towards re-establishing respect for America and its armed forces in the world. You asked what I "expected" to see - - well, on torture, "expecting" to see a reversal is kind of strong language, I would say rather that it's something that I might see, and would hope to see. NOT seeing it would be an early signal to me that Obama, like Bill Clinton, may not live up to the promise that he showed as a candidate.
The existing wars are a much tougher nut to crack. Once begun, they can't be called off, unless the new President has a degree of boldness and courage that, frankly, I just don't think he has.
I expect to see the commitments to Iraq reduced, but I don't know how he's gonna do it. The problem is that appearances have to be maintained but costs cannot be sustained. Logically there are only a few ways to do it, but each is fraught with political minefields for Obama and I just don't know if he's going to be able to reverse this mistake or take the line of least resistance by letting the thing continue to fester through and beyond his own administration until it resolves itself.
A very predictable and welcome reversal is in the area of Supreme Court appointments. That's a no-brainer, and provided only that there are vacancies to be filled, Obama can be counted on to fill them with liberal, progressive judges rather than with Scalia or Alito clones. If he won't be given the pleasure of filling conservative seats, at least he can replace liberal judges with very young, long-lasting varieties.
I expect also to see some serious tax reform. I'm not sure what form it will take in detail, but we all know the era of tax breaks for the rich is over. Tax reform is complex and exquisitely detailed and I wouldn't presume to guess the mechanism, apart from what Obama's already revealed to Joe the Plumber, but in general, I'd expect a much heavier bite on the rich and possibly some kind of break for the little guy.
Gay rights? No changes, but to be fair, I don't believe that Bush made any changes in the situation that he inherited from Clinton. Don't ask don't tell was a Clinton compromise to paint over one of his broken promises, but at least Bush never - - as far as I know - - did anything to worsen the situation that requires reversal.
Stem cell research - - changes in funding policies for sure, but I am not really sure if there will be much demand for funding in human embryo stem cell research.
Foreign aid restrictions on population control efforts that were religiously motivated, I think that's all gone. There won't be any more fundamentalist influence on or interference with any kind of domestic or foreign federally financed programs that deal in any way with human sexuality.
The general tilt of the Bush administration towards laissez-faire capitalism is going to shift towards more regulation, but the system was never pure laissez-faire, so we're not really talking reversal so much as course alteration.
In summary, the worst mistake by far - - and it's really not a mistake but a crime - - of the Bush administration was the war in Iraq. This could be totally reversed in under six months if Obama had the balls or even the mandate, but he has neither, and so the way that he deals with it won't be so much geared to stopping it in its tracks but more towards maintaining appearances and covering his own ass. The big change will be invisible - - the wars he DOESN'T start.
-
Further along the lines of what changes I'd expect - -
I saw Michael Moore on Larry King last night and did I imagine it? or was he hedging his bets? Did anyone see this? He says he foresees a rapid exit from Iraq; but then, "much faster than they'd have been pulled out by McCain? by Bush?" It kinda slipped by me. I'm not sure what he said, but McCain's on record that he could keep the troops there for 100 years. If that's the case "much faster than the other guys" is not necessarily the same as "gone in a flash."
Well, maybe the watchword is "Wait and See."
-
If Cuba was a Democracy it would be impossible for them to exile a third of their people to a foreign nation where they might become in important voteing block.
===================================================
First off, one-third of Cubans do NOT live in the US. There are maybe two million here and another 11 million in Cuba. That isn't a third.
Second, the US could, if it wanted to, easily attract a third of all Ecuadoreans, Salvadoreans or Hondurans, regardless of whatever type of government these countries had. Immigration to the US is up to the US, not any foreign power.
Third, at least half of all the Puerto Ricans on the planet live in the US. Puerto Rico has been some sort of democracy since the 1930's.
There is nothing remotely true about this statement. Cubans come here because they mistakenly believe that there is more prosperity and fashionable clothing and other consumer products. Maybe one in ten has come for political reasons. Many Cubans are thrown in jail for theft, but claim to be 'political prisoners'. Only a minority of 'political prisoners' have been in jail for political activity.
-
Always a great mystery to me how all the Cubans who make it here are portrayed as a stunning indictment of the failure of communism in Cuba, but none of the Salvadorans, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans etc. who make it here illegally are seen as a stunning indictment of the failure of capitalism in their home countries. They're just pests and nuisances to be returned to sender or killed by vigilante groups.
Naturally, Cubans will flock to the U.S.A. if they're granted automatic rights of landing. Think of what kind of floodgates would be opened if all the rest of Central America and Mexico were granted the same right. Their fucking homelands would be depopulated overnight.
-
Always a great mystery to me how all the Cubans who make it here are portrayed as a stunning indictment of the failure of communism in Cuba, but none of the Salvadorans, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans etc. who make it here illegally are seen as a stunning indictment of the failure of capitalism in their home countries. They're just pests and nuisances to be returned to sender or killed by vigilante groups.
Naturally, Cubans will flock to the U.S.A. if they're granted automatic rights of landing. Think of what kind of floodgates would be opened if all the rest of Central America and Mexico were granted the same right. Their fucking homelands would be depopulated overnight.
Are you trying to tell me that Mexico is not a socialist governed country?
-
Are you trying to tell me that Mexico is not a socialist governed country?
Mexico is NOT a Socialist country in any way. It never has been.
I lived in Mexico for three years. I think I would have noticed.
-
I think maybe plane's thinking is stuck back in the Thirties, in the era of Lazaro Cárdenas, when the oil wells were nationalized, the priests and nuns were forbidden to wear their robes in public and the churches were closed by the PRI. The PRI kept its name for decades afterwards, but the "R" in the party name was the only thing socialist about the government. Vicente Fox's party was the first to defeat the PRI in an election so now the country is closer to a two-party model. It's nowhere near socialist.
-
The PRI gets fewer votes than both the conservative, church-linked PAN and the leftist PRD.
Fox stole the election, by the way, and the current PAN president was also accused of stealing the election. The PRD always wins in the capital.
In the 1950's, the ultrarightwing sinarquista movement, which evolved into the PAN, was allied with the Joe McCarthy and John Bircher far right of the US. These are the guys who bankroll Rush and other rightwing loons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Mexico)
-
I was thinking about the ownership of the oil industry , and that the biggest employer in the country is the government.
-
I was thinking about the ownership of the oil industry , and that the biggest employer in the country is the government.
The US oil interests were paid for their oil holdings and property in Mexico many, many years ago. There was nowhere they exploited worse than Mexico, even worse than they exploited the Oklahoma Indians.
Mexico is not a socialist country. The PRI ran Mexico, with the aid and assistance of the US government like a private company. Schoolteachers had to buy jobs from corrupt state governments. There was a compulsory donation by all government employees to the PRI from the 1940's through the 1990's. What Mexico is, is corrupt. The PAN has become almost as corrupt as the PRI ever was, and like the PRI, fixes elections, and collaborates with the PRI to prevent the PRD, which is the least corrupt party, from taking power, although it has almost certainly won the popular vote more than once.
The US is even happier with PAN domination than it was with PRI domination, because PAN is allied with the powerful rightwing industrialists of Monterrey.
-
I was thinking about the ownership of the oil industry , and that the biggest employer in the country is the government.
The US oil interests were paid for their oil holdings and property in Mexico many, many years ago. There was nowhere they exploited worse than Mexico, even worse than they exploited the Oklahoma Indians.
Mexico is not a socialist country. The PRI ran Mexico, with the aid and assistance of the US government like a private company. Schoolteachers had to buy jobs from corrupt state governments. There was a compulsory donation by all government employees to the PRI from the 1940's through the 1990's. What Mexico is, is corrupt. The PAN has become almost as corrupt as the PRI ever was, and like the PRI, fixes elections, and collaborates with the PRI to prevent the PRD, which is the least corrupt party, from taking power, although it has almost certainly won the popular vote more than once.
The US is even happier with PAN domination than it was with PRI domination, because PAN is allied with the powerful rightwing industrialists of Monterrey.
What part of this is telling me that Mexico is not socialist?
-
Mexico has a free market economy in the trillion dollar class. It contains a mixture of modern and outmoded industry and agriculture, increasingly dominated by the private sector. Recent administrations have expanded competition in seaports, railroads, telecommunications, electricity generation, natural gas distribution, and airports. Per capita income is one-fourth that of the US; income distribution remains highly unequal. Trade with the US and Canada has tripled since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Mexico has 12 free trade agreements with over 40 countries including, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, the European Free Trade Area, and Japan, putting more than 90% of trade under free trade agreements. In 2007, during his first year in office, the Felipe CALDERON administration was able to garner support from the opposition to successfully pass a pension and a fiscal reform. The administration continues to face many economic challenges including the need to upgrade infrastructure, modernize labor laws, and allow private investment in the energy sector. CALDERON has stated that his top economic priorities remain reducing poverty and creating jobs.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html)
Ok , not as Socialist as it used to be , still more than we are , for now.
-
Mexico is not Socialist because the means of production- the companies that manufacture clothes, food products, beer, sombreros, Chrysler PT's, serapes, onyx chess sets, piñatas and even those who build condos and hotels in Yucatan and Baja do not belong to the state.
It is a simple concept. I fail to understand why you still do not understand it. When the means of production belong to the state, you have socialism. If you include management by a one-party dictatorship of the proletariat, then you have Communism.
It is as easy a concept to master as the "shirts and skins" divisions in seventh=grade gym class.
Raising the income tax 3% on income above $250K is also not Socialism. You need to understand that the schmucks that have defined "socialism" for you on talk radio are devious shills, paid to stuff your head with propaganda.
-
Mexico is not Socialist because the means of production- the companies that manufacture clothes, food products, beer, sombreros, Chrysler PT's, serapes, onyx chess sets, piñatas and even those who build condos and hotels in Yucatan and Baja do not belong to the state.
It is a simple concept. I fail to understand why you still do not understand it. When the means of production belong to the state, you have socialism. If you include management by a one-party dictatorship of the proletariat, then you have Communism.
It is as easy a concept to master as the "shirts and skins" divisions in seventh=grade gym class.
Raising the income tax 3% on income above $250K is also not Socialism. You need to understand that the schmucks that have defined "socialism" for you on talk radio are devious shills, paid to stuff your head with propaganda.
It is almost amusing that the RW radio freaks call stealing our labor and money capitalism , but if we try to get a little of it back it is socialism and class warfare. It is sad that the RW morons in here believe it.
-
Every day, we see advertisement after advertisement, and most of these make zero sense from any logical point of view. Catch the wave, how to spell relief, Beyonce with a gold "upgrade" bling in her mouth, lies about cable and satellite TV plans, lies about cellphone service diet remedies, cars, everything. And you ask "How can any one smart enough to earn enough to buy these things believe this crap?".
But the truth is, as the inventor of modern propaganda, WWI AG Mitchell Palmer knew, and as Josef Goebbles learned from him, all you have to do is spout lies, innuendos and mistruths again and again and again, and eventually people start to believe them. Next thing you know, there they are, sitting in their Hummer and voting for morons like Juniorbush.
Hitler called this "The Big Lie". Lie big and repeat it forever and most of the time, you will find people will start to believe it. It helps when you focus on people who already have shown that they will believe stuff with no proof, like many religions.
-
yes we can
-
"Yes we can" is not a sales slogan. It is an attitude.
It meant originally that yes, we can elect a Black man president. Yes we can get rid of incompetent warmongers.
If you believe you can do something, you might be able to do it.
If you believe that you cannot, then you can't.
This is not the same as a Big Lie.
A Big Lie would be believing, like R Kelly, that one can fly.
That particular lie is a self-correcting one. Thise who try to fly without wings tend to plummet.
-
"Yes we can" is not a sales slogan. It is an attitude.
Sure it is
Same as country first.
-
yes we can
Are you calling yews we can a Big Lie? It looks more like a big truth now that Big O is elected.
-
Mexico is not Socialist because the means of production- the companies that manufacture clothes, food products, beer, sombreros, Chrysler PT's, serapes, onyx chess sets, piñatas and even those who build condos and hotels in Yucatan and Baja do not belong to the state.
It is a simple concept. I fail to understand why you still do not understand it. When the means of production belong to the state, you have socialism. If you include management by a one-party dictatorship of the proletariat, then you have Communism.
It is as easy a concept to master as the "shirts and skins" divisions in seventh=grade gym class.
Raising the income tax 3% on income above $250K is also not Socialism. You need to understand that the schmucks that have defined "socialism" for you on talk radio are devious shills, paid to stuff your head with propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEMEX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEMEX)
Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) is Mexico's state-owned petroleum company. It is the 10th largest oil company in the world in terms of revenue and ranks 42nd on the list of Fortune 500 companies.
http://www.pemex.com/index.cfm (http://www.pemex.com/index.cfm)
PEMEX tiene el compromiso de producir hidrocarburos y sus derivados, transportarlos y comercializarlos, así como proporcionar los servicios relacionados con su actividad en forma segura, eficaz y apegada al marco normativo, con respeto al medio ambiente.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_50/b3912084_mz058.htm (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_50/b3912084_mz058.htm) Mexico's oil giant forks over so much money to the state that it's deeply in debt, and a price drop could set off a crisis
World oil prices are at near-record highs, and Mexico is pumping and exporting more crude than ever before. The country is the world's seventh-largest oil producer and one of the top three suppliers to the U.S., up there with Canada and Saudi Arabia. Yet state oil monopoly Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), a giant with $55.9 billion in revenue, is hardly thriving. Indeed, in recent years the company has only been able to make ends meet through massive borrowing, so that it now owes a staggering $42.5 billion, including $24 billion in off-balance-sheet debt. Why? Because Pemex is the Mexican government's cash cow. The state-run company pays out over 60% of its revenue in royalties and taxes, and those funds pay for a third of the federal government's budget. If oil prices drop or there are no major new discoveries of crude, that could spell big trouble for Pemex -- and Mexico's finances.
Pemex' mounting debt has international rating agencies worried. They don't believe the company will default on its obligations, which are considered quasi-sovereign debt and are implicitly guaranteed by the Mexican government. But Pemex' debt could begin to hamper its access to international capital markets unless the government finds other sources of tax revenue to meet its budget. "Fitch remains concerned about Pemex' significant debt level and its ability to reduce borrowing absent material fiscal reform," Fitch Ratings said in a Nov. 24 report. Officials from Pemex and from the Finance Ministry were unavailable to comment for this story.
The question for Pemex, and for Mexico, is what will happen if oil prices head south -- as many analysts predict they will next year. After all, Mexico's foreign-debt crisis in the early 1980s was sparked, in part, by a drop in crude prices. And Pemex' total debt load is four times that of Exxon Mobil Corp.'s (XOM ) -- a company many times its size -- and one of the highest for any oil producer worldwide. To compound the problem, production from Mexico's biggest oil field has peaked. The shallow-water Cantarell field in the Gulf of Mexico still provides 62% of Mexico's overall crude output, but by 2006 production will begin falling by as much as 14% a year, Pe- mex says.
As I was saying, Mexico is more socialist than we are , less than they used to be , but apparently still socialist enough to cause some problems .
-
As I was saying, Mexico is more socialist than we are , less than they used to be , but apparently still socialist enough to cause some problems .
You seem to think that all the problems of humanity are casused by "socialism". That is beyond silly. Mexico's major problems are caused by corruption. Corruption at Pemex is the same as corruption at McDonald's de Mexico or Coca Cola de Mexico or any other enterprise.
If Mexico were to give Pemex to ExxonMobil or anyne else tomorrow, the same people would be doing the same corrupt things. Socialism is a system of government that is no more corrupt or less corrupt than any other. Norway is largely socialist and far, far less corrupt than the US. Nigeria is entirely capitalist and probably the most corrupt place on Earth.
-
Are you calling yews we can a Big Lie? It looks more like a big truth now that Big O is elected.
Depends on what the 'can" part of the jingle is.
What was it he was selling, again?
-
As I was saying, Mexico is more socialist than we are , less than they used to be , but apparently still socialist enough to cause some problems .
You seem to think that all the problems of humanity are casused b"y socialism". That is beyond silly. Mexico's major problems are caused by corruption. Corruption at Pemex is the same as corruption at McDonald's de Mexico or Coca Cola de Mexico or any other enterprise.
If Mexico were to give Pemex to ExxonMobil or anyne else tomorrow, the same people would be doing the same corrupt things. Socialism is a system of government that is no more corrupt or less corrupt than any other. Norway is largely socialist and far, far less corrupt than the US. Nigeria is entirely capitalist and probably the most corrupt place on Earth.
That is beyond silly. Mexico's major problems are caused by corruption.
socialism/corruption
Tomato/tomaato
Pemex certainly should not be "given" at all , but what is its net worth?
If it were sold to some corporation that was willing to accept the risk it might be run more like a business and less like a government agency.
If that ment it employed more people it would be worth doing.
But Mexico is as socialist as it is because it has a lot of voters who like it that way , I don't expect this to change suddenly.
Mexico has parts of its economy that are doing better than Pemex does n't it?
-
capitalism/corruption
Tomato/tomaato
Mexico is probly a lot less socialist than US. Their workers are poorer and their rich are richer- pure capitalism at its worst. Carlos Slim, the second richest man in the world is out of that smaller economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim_Helú (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim_Helú)
-
Socialism is an economic system, it can be corrupt, or not. Capitalism is another economic system, it can also be corrupt, or not
Capitalist countries are the most unequal on the planet. Nigeria is exponentially more corrupt than Mexico.
-
Socialism is an economic system, it can be corrupt, or not. Capitalism is another economic system, it can also be corrupt, or not
Capitalist countries are the most unequal on the planet. Nigeria is exponentially more corrupt than Mexico.
So Mexico is socialist in some measure because the National government is the owner of one of its most lucrative industries?
-
Socialism is an economic system, it can be corrupt, or not. Capitalism is another economic system, it can also be corrupt, or not
Capitalist countries are the most unequal on the planet. Nigeria is exponentially more corrupt than Mexico.
So Mexico is socialist in some measure because the National government is the owner of one of its most lucrative industries?
By this measure the US became much more socialist then Mexico under the Bushidiot by essentially taking over the financial system. Who knew you Bushidolaters were such socialists.
-
So Mexico is socialist in some measure because the National government is the owner of one of its most lucrative industries?
=============================
I doubt very seriously that PEMEX is even in th top ten most lucrative industries of Mexico most years. It's not run very well, or even very safely. Probably safer than it would be if it belonged to the previous US owners. They are the ones who run the nastiest facilities, in Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea and Ecuador.
-
Socialism is an economic system, it can be corrupt, or not. Capitalism is another economic system, it can also be corrupt, or not
Capitalist countries are the most unequal on the planet. Nigeria is exponentially more corrupt than Mexico.
So Mexico is socialist in some measure because the National government is the owner of one of its most lucrative industries?
By this measure the US became much more socialist then Mexico under the Bushidiot by essentially taking over the financial system. Who knew you Bushidolaters were such socialists.
That is actually a good point Knute.
-
One could question whether financial services are actually producers of anything. Mostly, they are bookkeepers.
-
One could question whether financial services are actually producers of anything. Mostly, they are bookkeepers.
And ...?
Bookeeping should be free?
Advise and Education should be free too , but don't tell my Professors and lawyers I said that.
-
Bookkeeping is a service, not a product. So ownership of the means of production might not apply to bookkeeping.
I have been providing free advise here for years.