Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Pyongyang orders its rockets on alert to hit US bases

Page 4 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

29 Mar 2013, 5:53 pm

Does being a blind follower, or person unaware of him beforehand change the points or validity of the points in Chomsky's argument?



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Mar 2013, 6:02 pm

GGPViper wrote:
This may come as a shocking surprise to you, RushKing, but not everyone on this planet blind follower of Noam Chomsky.


Irrespective of whether you are a 'blind follower' of Chomsky or not, would you mind informing us on how Chomsky is wrong on this particular point?


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

29 Mar 2013, 6:06 pm

GGPViper wrote:
RushKing wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
RushKing wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
... And what connection is there between capitalism and those two images?

Centralized control over workplaces, taking everything the laborers on the property produce and giving the largest slice of the pie to yourself. Not a very hard connection to make.

So, under capitalism, control of the workplace is centralized in one place in the country?

its centralised between a few individuals, and the status quo maintained through usury, nepotism and convenient economic conditions.

No better than your average axis-of-evil dictatorship, when it boils down to it.

This is utterly ridiculous and blatantly false. Some of the greatest improvements in living standards in the world are due to the wealth generated by capitalism.

The Index of Economic Freedom (a common indicator of "capitalism") is strongly correlated with GDP, and GDP is strongly correlated with substantial quality of life indicators like life expectancy and infant mortality.

Hide in your cocoon all you want. The facts are on my side...

Noam Chomsky destroyed this argument.

[video link omitted]

This may come as a shocking surprise to you, RushKing, but not everyone on this planet blind follower of Noam Chomsky.

I'm not a blind follower of Noam Chomsky, but I believe he had a point.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Mar 2013, 6:08 pm

if you bothered to read the stats from the Korean truth project which I posted for your convenience, you will discover the stats are most decidedly not 'on your side'.

Remind me how Juche Korea is faring, compared to capitalist Philippines or Indonesia?


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

29 Mar 2013, 6:51 pm

thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
This may come as a shocking surprise to you, RushKing, but not everyone on this planet blind follower of Noam Chomsky.

Irrespective of whether you are a 'blind follower' of Chomsky or not, would you mind informing us on how Chomsky is wrong on this particular point?

Well, since you *asked*, I actually had to sit down and listen to the whole 10 minutes and 9 seconds of the Chomsky video...

And it wasn't an argument, it was just a collection of random anecdotes... Why anyone takes this man serious is beyond me. He clearly has no understanding - or respect - of the concept of science.

He is also a historical revisionist. His main argument for the Soviet Union is that the economy took a downturn after 1990... But the collapse of the Soviet economy was due to the inefficiency of its planned economy prior to 1990. People might not spot this because of Chomsky's rhetorical eloquence, but he is basically lying through his teeth.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Mar 2013, 6:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

That's easy to say when you live in New Jersey, not South Korea or Japan. Hopefully the broader party and military would be smart enough to defy his orders. The US has the capacity to take down a long range ICBM headed for the US mainland, but would not be able to react in time to protect places closer to Pynonyang.


If you are overly worried about nukes, Pyongyang could be bombed to flinders with conventional weapons.

The water supply could be interdicted by a few well placed bombs. The power stations could easily be taken out. The best time to do it is in the winter when it gets really cold.

ruveyn


I'm not worried about US nukes. Nukes or not, there's no doubt North Korea would lose badly in any all out war. It's just that NK has the potential to do a lot of damage on the way out. I remember some of Saddams scud missiles actually landed in Israel before we were able to take them out in the first Gulf War. North Korea could pull the same kind of thing on South Korea, or Japan, or any place nearby where there's a US base. Only with a much more damaging payload.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Mar 2013, 6:58 pm

GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
This may come as a shocking surprise to you, RushKing, but not everyone on this planet blind follower of Noam Chomsky.

Irrespective of whether you are a 'blind follower' of Chomsky or not, would you mind informing us on how Chomsky is wrong on this particular point?

Well, since you *asked*, I actually had to sit down and listen to the whole 10 minutes and 9 seconds of the Chomsky video...

And it wasn't an argument, it was just a collection of random anecdotes... Why anyone takes this man serious is beyond me. He clearly has no understanding - or respect - of the concept of science.

He is also a historical revisionist. His main argument for the Soviet Union is that the economy took a downturn after 1990... But the collapse of the Soviet economy was due to the inefficiency of its planned economy prior to 1990. People might not spot this because of Chomsky's rhetorical eloquence, but he is basically lying through his teeth.


I think the thrust of his point is that the Soviet Union experienced a massive bound forward post 1917 from the mess that it had inherited from Tsarist Russia.

Also that the arguments being offered in favour of Capitalism are (were) the same arguments offered in favour of slavery and national socialism. They didn't make those systems any less reprehensible, and are not justifying capitalism any more.

You haven't really offered a rebuttal to his point, just a list of strawman soundbites.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

29 Mar 2013, 7:12 pm

thomas81 wrote:
if you bothered to read the stats from the Korean truth project which I posted for your convenience, you will discover the stats are most decidedly not 'on your side'.

Remind me how Juche Korea is faring, compared to capitalist Philippines or Indonesia?


Would you seriously prefer to live in North Korea instead of Indonesia? Indonesia is even part of the N11.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Mar 2013, 7:19 pm

thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
This may come as a shocking surprise to you, RushKing, but not everyone on this planet blind follower of Noam Chomsky.

Irrespective of whether you are a 'blind follower' of Chomsky or not, would you mind informing us on how Chomsky is wrong on this particular point?

Well, since you *asked*, I actually had to sit down and listen to the whole 10 minutes and 9 seconds of the Chomsky video...

And it wasn't an argument, it was just a collection of random anecdotes... Why anyone takes this man serious is beyond me. He clearly has no understanding - or respect - of the concept of science.

He is also a historical revisionist. His main argument for the Soviet Union is that the economy took a downturn after 1990... But the collapse of the Soviet economy was due to the inefficiency of its planned economy prior to 1990. People might not spot this because of Chomsky's rhetorical eloquence, but he is basically lying through his teeth.


I think the thrust of his point is that the Soviet Union experienced a massive bound forward post 1917 from the mess that it had inherited from Tsarist Russia.

Also that the arguments being offered in favour of Capitalism are (were) the same arguments offered in favour of slavery and national socialism. They didn't make those systems any less reprehensible, and are not justifying capitalism any more.

You haven't really offered a rebuttal to his point, just a list of strawman soundbites.


It all depends on how you choose to define progress. There was rapid industrialization but there was also food shortages, forced labor, and famines.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

29 Mar 2013, 7:22 pm

thomas81 wrote:
You haven't really offered a rebuttal to his point, just a list of strawman soundbites.

I have posted on WP - on multiple occasions - several scientific studies documenting the strong link between market economy, prosperity and growth which go beyond catchy one-liners from an over-hyped socialist guru.

http://relooney.fatcow.com/BarroDemocracy.pdf
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/f ... liagos.pdf

But I have reached the point where I see no other option but to accept that you will probably continue deluding yourself and other uninformed posters on WP into thinking that socialism/communism/Juche (or whatever doomed-to-failed teenager ideology) is a viable and desirable policy...



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Mar 2013, 7:25 pm

GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
You haven't really offered a rebuttal to his point, just a list of strawman soundbites.

I have posted on WP - on multiple occasions - several scientific studies documenting the strong link between market economy, prosperity and growth which go beyond catchy one-liners from an over-hyped socialist guru.

http://relooney.fatcow.com/BarroDemocracy.pdf
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/f ... liagos.pdf

But I have reached the point where I see no other option but to accept that you will probably continue deluding yourself and other uninformed posters on WP into thinking that socialism/communism/Juche (or whatever doomed-to-failed teenager ideology) is a viable and desirable policy...


...So the short version is you aren't able to explain why he is wrong, even though you are adamant that he is?

Gotcha. Just checking we're on the same page.

Capitalism is fantastic at wealth creation and prosperity, that part I am not denying. The problem is it is absolutely useless at delivering long term, sustainable distributed wealth and prosperity.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Mar 2013, 7:29 pm

GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
You haven't really offered a rebuttal to his point, just a list of strawman soundbites.

I have posted on WP - on multiple occasions - several scientific studies documenting the strong link between market economy, prosperity and growth which go beyond catchy one-liners from an over-hyped socialist guru.

.


Even Marxist-Leninist nations have adopted capitalistic tropes in their operation.

Are you familiar with Lenin's "new economic policy" which permitted private ownership of small plots of land in conjunction with the collective farms? Here is why. When Communism was strictly applied Russia went of from nation that produced a food surplus to a nation with a food shortage. To forestall starvation Lenin made some concessions to the farmers. Although private plots accounted for less than ten percent of the land that was farmed, the accounted for nearly forty percent of the produces.

The long and the short: Communism doesn't work. It never has and it never will. Even China, the land of Moa's Red Book has gone capitalistic in a big way. It is not quite free enterprise, but market mechanisms are now at work in China, and China is experiencing some significant growth in productivity.

Bottom line: Communism is a dud.

ruveyn



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Mar 2013, 7:29 pm

trollcatman wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
if you bothered to read the stats from the Korean truth project which I posted for your convenience, you will discover the stats are most decidedly not 'on your side'.

Remind me how Juche Korea is faring, compared to capitalist Philippines or Indonesia?


Would you seriously prefer to live in North Korea instead of Indonesia? Indonesia is even part of the N11.


that all depends which Indonesian social class you mean. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live on the minimal Indonesian income.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Mar 2013, 7:31 pm

thomas81 wrote:

that all depends which Indonesian social class you mean. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live on the minimal Indonesian income.


No one in his right mind wants to be poor. Even you do not want to be poor.

ruveyn



Giftorcurse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,887
Location: Port Royal, South Carolina

29 Mar 2013, 7:55 pm

To Kim Jong Un...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agfX4pJs-vo[/youtube]


_________________
Yes, I'm still alive.


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

29 Mar 2013, 8:20 pm

ruveyn wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
You haven't really offered a rebuttal to his point, just a list of strawman soundbites.

I have posted on WP - on multiple occasions - several scientific studies documenting the strong link between market economy, prosperity and growth which go beyond catchy one-liners from an over-hyped socialist guru.

.


Even Marxist-Leninist nations have adopted capitalistic tropes in their operation.

Are you familiar with Lenin's "new economic policy" which permitted private ownership of small plots of land in conjunction with the collective farms? Here is why. When Communism was strictly applied Russia went of from nation that produced a food surplus to a nation with a food shortage. To forestall starvation Lenin made some concessions to the farmers. Although private plots accounted for less than ten percent of the land that was farmed, the accounted for nearly forty percent of the produces.

The long and the short: Communism doesn't work. It never has and it never will. Even China, the land of Moa's Red Book has gone capitalistic in a big way. It is not quite free enterprise, but market mechanisms are now at work in China, and China is experiencing some significant growth in productivity.

Bottom line: Communism is a dud.

ruveyn


Centrally organized economies with fixed prices/credits (whatever you want to call the means through which people obtain goods) tend to lead to supply shortages. This is because people generally don't know how much of something to produce without a price incentive. When something is scarce, the fact that someone can sell for a high price encourages them to produce more and if competition is allowed scarcity goes down and prices fall. This is a flaw that the Soviets and Chinese acknowledged. The only way I can see how a system with no price system could function is if technology existed such that all goods could be produced locally.