TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Capitalism is evil?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Capitalism is evil?

According to Michael Moore it is. I guess socialism isnt evil. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jung Il, Mao etc and they will give you a big thumbs up for socialism!

Moore is a douche

quote:

By Mike Collett-White VENICE (Reuters) - Capitalism is evil. That is the conclusion of U.S. documentary maker Michael Moore's latest movie "Capitalism: A Love Story," which premieres at the Venice film festival on Sunday. Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty. The bad guys in Moore's mind are big banks and hedge funds which "gambled" investors' money in complex derivatives that few, if any, really understood and which belonged in the casino. Meanwhile, large companies have been prepared to lay off thousands of staff despite boasting record profits. The filmmaker also attacks the uncomfortably close relationship between banks, politicians and U.S. Treasury officials, meaning that regulation has been changed to favor the few on Wall Street rather than the many on Main Street. He says that by encouraging ordinary Americans to borrow against the value of their homes, businesses created the conditions that led to the financial crisis, and with it to homelessness and unemployment. Moore interviews priests who believe that capitalism is anti-Christian, because it fails to protect the poor and encourages greed. "Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives," Moore told an audience in Venice. "They need more than just regulation. We need to structure ourselves differently in order to create finance and money, support for jobs, businesses, etc, to keep a healthy economy going." GREEN SHOOTS? Amid the gloom, Moore detects the beginnings of a popular movement against unbridled capitalism, and believes President Barack Obama's rise to power may bolster it. The film follows factory workers who stage a sit-in at a Chicago glass factory when they are sacked with little warning and no pay and who eventually prevail over the bank. And a group of citizens occupies a home that has been repossessed and boarded up by the lending company, forcing the police who come to evict them to back down. "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes. "You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." Capitalism: A Love Story re-visits some of Moore's earlier movies, including a trip to his native Flint where his father was a car assembly line worker and was able to buy a home, a car, educate his children and look forward to a decent pension. But he brings it up to date with an examination of the financial crisis, demanding, but failing, to speak to the bosses of companies at the center of the collapse and asking traders whether they can explain to him exactly what derivatives are. When he asks for their advice, one man out of shot can be heard replying: "Don't make any more movies." Moore drives a truck up to some of the biggest banks in New York and, through a loud speaker, demands they give back the hundreds of billions of bailout dollars to the country. And he interviews an employee of a company which buys up re-possessed, or "distressed" properties at a fraction of their original value and which is called Condo Vultures.

Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble. Moore's schtick is to take things to extremes to prove a point (a style which I enjoy myself).

If socialism is such a bad word these days, maybe collectivism should be launched as the non-commie alternative.

For me, now living over here in socialist western Europe, watching all shit media shitshow over socialist this, and fascist that (whether it's US or Canadian political asshats on display), I find it quite laughable.

The opposing arguments to the healthcare issues in the US are so shamelessly selfish it's disgusting.

If that country didn't rack up a gazillion dollars in war debt, paying for healthcare wouldn't have been a big deal if they were ok with borrowing a similar sum of money to cover it.

If countries like Japan, the Nordics, France, Germany etc can get along just fine with managed healthcare, why can't Canada and the US?

Healthcare over here isn't free. You need to pay for insurance. The difference is that the whole thing is regulated to avoid the end user being bent over and ripped off for crap services. hell, in the US, even if you pay your insurance, they still have the right to deny you coverage without much to back that up!

Until people set aside their selfishness and accept that they need to pay higher taxes to support the stupid money being spent by their government (speaking mostly about the US here), the system will continue to be useless, and the status quo will continue until the whole house of cards falls down.

Agreed...

I think that the US taking capitalism to an extreme turns it into a bad thing...

Just like socialism to an extreme doesn't work either...

And yes Moore takes his views to an extreme as well but I thInk he does it for the sake of making his films controversial in order to sell more tickets....

And I didn't know that Hitler was a socialist....

Or Kim Jong Il...

I thought they were just nuts...

quote:

Originally posted by VDub And I didn't know that Hitler was a socialist.... Or Kim Jong Il... I thought they were just nuts...

yeah, I woulda thought that masking fascism with the word socialism doesn't make them socialists.

Comparing socialism to dictatorship is stupid because there are socialist countries in Northern Europe which work just fine (no genocide, high quality of life, etc). Hearing such a comparison by none other than Jayx1 is not surprising at all, though.

Michael Moore's point is equally stupid. Capitalism isn't evil per se; unregulated capitalism is. The problem with the US isn't just capitalism, but rather that they allowed capitalism to control the government and not vice versa.

Re: Capitalism is evil?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 According to Michael Moore it is. I guess socialism isnt evil. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Kim Jung Il, Mao etc and they will give you a big thumbs up for socialism! Moore is a douche

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble.

And your position is that the U.S. takes "capitalism" to an extreme, is it? You'd think they'd have a slightly smaller government if that were the case.

quote:

If socialism is such a bad word these days, maybe collectivism should be launched as the non-commie alternative.

Believe me, there is nothing we right-wing nuts would love more than for you to start labeling it for what it really is.

quote:

The opposing arguments to the healthcare issues in the US are so shamelessly selfish it's disgusting.

Oh? Such as? I can't wait to hear this.

quote:

If countries like Japan, the Nordics, France, Germany etc can get along just fine with managed healthcare, why can't Canada and the US?

None of those countries prohibit individuals from seeking private care, or practitioners from offering it. In fact, only Canada has this policy today, and only the ex-Soviet Union had it in the past.

And if you don't believe that the U.S. health care system is already managed/regulated then you need to take your head out of your ass and actually visit a hospital there sometime.

quote:

Until people set aside their selfishness and accept that they need to pay higher taxes to support the stupid money being spent by their government (speaking mostly about the US here), the system will continue to be useless, and the status quo will continue until the whole house of cards falls down.

Or the government could spend less money. But that's just crazy, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Sly_Guy yeah, I woulda thought that masking fascism with the word socialism doesn't make them socialists.

The Nazis were socialists. It wasn't just a name. Didn't you learn this shit in grade school?

And the Soviets... well, if you're going to argue that they weren't socialist, you're as nuts as they were.

Mao, communist, through and through.

Kim Jong-Il, debatable, I'd call his regime more of a "kleptocracy." For all of communism's flaws, I think the government has to actually give something back in order for it to retain that label.

I've heard this "it's just a label" argument hundreds of times before... never with a shred of evidence to back it up.

This is so stupid, I'm sick of people lumping together socialism with communism, fascism, dictatorships, or totalitarianism. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro all had their different brands of ideology which can't be lumped into "socialism." It's too easy these days to equate big government with communism, but unless someone is advocating for the elimination of private property, they aren't really communist are they?

Also, for those people who are so against government spending, what do they really expect? Sometimes you need government for services, and if one government spends more than another that doesn't automatically make it socialist.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse Any "ism" taken to the extreme is bound to cause trouble.

jism!?

quote:

Originally posted by Anton This is so stupid, I'm sick of people lumping together socialism with communism, fascism, dictatorships, or totalitarianism. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro all had their different brands of ideology which can't be lumped into "socialism." It's too easy these days to equate big government with communism, but unless someone is advocating for the elimination of private property, they aren't really communist are they?

Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were all documented socialists. Just because you're sick of hearing it doesn't make it any less true. And socialism is in fact a synonym for communism; that is where the term came from.

You are right in one respect, which is that big government is not necessarily socialist. However, many advocates of big government either have the ultimate (perhaps unspoken) goal of elimination of private property, or say they oppose that principle but either don't realize or don't care that their other ideals (blind hatred of "profits" and the "rich", for one thing) ultimately converge on said goal.

quote:

Also, for those people who are so against government spending, what do they really expect? Sometimes you need government for services, and if one government spends more than another that doesn't automatically make it socialist.

"Need" is the operative word here. The only service we "need" the government to perform is law enforcement and national defense (and many would argue that we shouldn't depend on the government for either of those things). Every other service can be performed by private enterprise, and every other service has been demonstrated to be higher quality when performed by private enterprise.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were all documented socialists. Just because you're sick of hearing it doesn't make it any less true. And socialism is in fact a synonym for communism; that is where the term came from.

I wouldn't say they were documented socialists - and documented by who? You could maybe argue that they had socialist policies. But that doesn't make socialism inherently evil.

quote:

You are right in one respect, which is that big government is not necessarily socialist. However, many advocates of big government either have the ultimate (perhaps unspoken) goal of elimination of private property, or say they oppose that principle but either don't realize or don't care that their other ideals (blind hatred of "profits" and the "rich", for one thing) ultimately converge on said goal.

I have never heard of any politician argue for the abolishment of private property, that is just a utopian dream.

Personally, I don't hate profits or the rich. However, it depends how those profits are made and how that person becomes rich in the first place. I know there are a lot of honest rich people around, but I also know that some make money simply by exploitation and underhandedness. I would say that Micheal Moore and other "socialists" offer a critique of capitalism, and do not argue for the total elimination of it. Rather, they argue more for reform. The problem is that every time someone critiques capitalism they automatically get labeled a socialist, communist, or fascist.

quote:

"Need" is the operative word here. The only service we "need" the government to perform is law enforcement and national defense (and many would argue that we shouldn't depend on the government for either of those things). Every other service can be performed by private enterprise, and every other service has been demonstrated to be higher quality when performed by private enterprise.

Even the smallest of small governments would need more than just national defense and law enforcement. There are legitimate reasons for having something privately run, however, in the United States I think this is taken too far.

Something like health care should not be exclusively run as a for-profit venture. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be ANY privately run health care institutions at all, but there should be an option available to all - in order to at least get some kind of basic care. Granted, there are those who would argue that government programs are wasteful etc, but I would rather have the government waste some tax dollars than see millions of people without health care.

As far as the debate over the efficacy of government run programs, studies have been published which support both opponents and proponents of such programs. "Quality" is very subjective and different methodologies or ideological leanings tend to produce different results. That aside, I do believe in private enterprise but it's just hard to imagine something like health care exclusively in the hands of corporations and insurance companies.

hey Digi..why are you so pro American..are you a citizen or a CIA agent sent here by the US government to infiltrate our party scene?

ps, i love moore..

quote:

Originally posted by Anton I wouldn't say they were documented socialists - and documented by who?

By just about every non-revisionist history book?

quote:

You could maybe argue that they had socialist policies. But that doesn't make socialism inherently evil.

Indeed. But I never used the word "evil". And I believe Jay's point was not necessarily that socialism is evil, but that it's no less "evil" than capitalism. Although I can't say I'm surprised by the misinterpretation and ensuing knee-jerk reactions.

quote:

I have never heard of any politician argue for the abolishment of private property, that is just a utopian dream.

Because they can't get elected on that platform. Does not mean that it isn't their real intent, and does not apply in states where governments are not elected (they don't "argue for" anything there, they just do it).

quote:

I would say that Micheal Moore and other "socialists" offer a critique of capitalism, and do not argue for the total elimination of it. Rather, they argue more for reform. The problem is that every time someone critiques capitalism they automatically get labeled a socialist, communist, or fascist.

Michael Moore and other "socialists" have never offered any viable alternative/reform except to impose more taxes and socialize more enterprises. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

While it may be true that they don't argue for the total elimination of capitalism, the problem is that they always blame capitalism for every societal ill and are never content with any amount of free enterprise. If it isn't big tobacco, it's plastics, or forestry, or insurance, or some other industry. Eliminate one, and they'll move onto attacking another one. It never ends.

quote:

Even the smallest of small governments would need more than just national defense and law enforcement. There are legitimate reasons for having something privately run, however, in the United States I think this is taken too far.

And it's clear here that you are, in fact, a socialist, because you start from the premise that a business needs a "legitimate reason" to be "privately run." Anybody who isn't a socialist would start with the assumption that all businesses would be privately run, and ask for a legitimate reason for it to be socialized.

quote:

Something like health care should not be exclusively run as a for-profit venture. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be ANY privately run health care institutions at all, but there should be an option available to all - in order to at least get some kind of basic care.

That's exactly how the American system works today. It's amazing how many people feel free to criticize the system while being totally ignorant of how it actually works. A hospital is not allowed to refuse treatment to somebody without funds or insurance; that is the "basic care."

I'm fine with the way some European states do it too, like Germany, but that doesn't prove that a privately-run (but heavily regulated) system as in the USA can't succeed just as well.

quote:

Granted, there are those who would argue that government programs are wasteful etc, but I would rather have the government waste some tax dollars than see millions of people without health care.

Should the government also be buying our food and housing, then? Should they pay for our water and electricity? These are all essential services.

Some Americans refuse to budget for health insurance mostly because they're young, healthy, and don't think they need it. Then when they develop health problems, they complain how expensive it is. You want a solution? A non-socialist solution would be to require these people to have an insurer - doesn't matter who or what level of coverage, just force them to make it an essential budget item like food or rent.

quote:

As far as the debate over the efficacy of government run programs, studies have been published which support both opponents and proponents of such programs. "Quality" is very subjective and different methodologies or ideological leanings tend to produce different results. That aside, I do believe in private enterprise but it's just hard to imagine something like health care exclusively in the hands of corporations and insurance companies.

I'd love to see these studies which show that government-run social programs perform better than their private-enterprise equivalents. Show me just ONE of these.

And if you have so much trouble imagining it, why don't you see for yourself? Maybe, like most aspects of capitalism, the system is more complex than you realize and it works because of all the intrinsic checks and balances, and neither requires nor benefits from central planning. Don't be wilfully ignorant.

Or just don't harp on the U.S. system when you know next to nothing about it.

quote:

Originally posted by gummybear hey Digi..why are you so pro American..are you a citizen or a CIA agent sent here by the US government to infiltrate our party scene?

I'm not pro-American any more than I am pro-Canadian. I'm just not rabidly anti-American like many of you. I believe in personal responsibility and I'm not desperate to find a scapegoat for everything that's wrong with the world.

quote:

ps, i love moore..

Enough said.

quote:

Originally posted by me@t k@tie Comparing socialism to dictatorship is stupid because there are socialist countries in Northern Europe which work just fine (no genocide, high quality of life, etc). Hearing such a comparison by none other than Jayx1 is not surprising at all, though. Michael Moore's point is equally stupid. Capitalism isn't evil per se; unregulated capitalism is. The problem with the US isn't just capitalism, but rather that they allowed capitalism to control the government and not vice versa.

I wouldn't call his position stupid, as I take what you just said to be exactly Moore's point

i.e. the status quo is a twisted abomination of "capitalism" and it's time to examine some alternatives...because what exists now simply isn't working.

Nice debate so far.... i have to get out of here for now but ill respond when i get back.

In regards to the healthcare debate with respect to capitalism, why does heathcare have to be for profit?

Does everything absolutely have to be for profit?

Why can't society engage in something that helps the masses and that gives a comfortable return to the entities that service it?

To me, that mentality is what's wrong with hardcore capitalism. When you see profit over everything regardless of the associated costs with that viewpoint.

I'm all for companies making money - that's what business is for. But healthcare shouldn't be "business" by definition.

quote:

Originally posted by pmoisse In regards to the healthcare debate with respect to capitalism, why does heathcare have to be for profit?

Because profit is the only reliable incentive for health care practitioners to provide a good quality of service.

That doesn't mean it works all the time, but it's the best system we have.

In two-tiered systems, like most of Europe, the quality of care provided by the private hospitals is almost invariably superior to the quality of care provided by the public hospitals. Why do you suppose that is? Coincidence?

quote:

Why can't society engage in something that helps the masses and that gives a comfortable return to the entities that service it?

First of all, "comfortable" is entirely relative, and second, you're also neglecting incentives from the consumer side; people always consume more of something that's "free", which raises the total cost of providing that service, which makes for a less "comfortable return" to the service providers. It's a vicious circle, which is why we've seen the costs of just about every social program balloon over the last several decades.

quote:

I'm all for companies making money - that's what business is for. But healthcare shouldn't be "business" by definition.

By your definition, perhaps.

Average Annual Growth Rates in Total Health Expenditures Per Capita,
U.S. and Selected Countries, 1980 to 2003; 1990 to 2003




Total Health Expenditures as a Share of GDP, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003


source (admittedly this was 2003, but I only have time for a quick search)

These charts show that spending doesn't necessarily equal quality of care. The heathcare systems in the charts are all quite well regarded in their own rights (within reason). That's not what I'm trying to compare. With the US system, they're paying more for the same apple that you buy in Canada, or the Netherlands, or Germany.


While I've been fortunate to not have to make use of hospital services in as long as I can remember, I don't regard my taxation for healthcare to be a personal burden since I don't use the system. Why should I cheap out and demand that the government take less from me if it deprives someone else of care?

Also, with regards to the thought that people will take more if it's free, firstly, I never said that managed healthcare was "free". Second, the issue of people eating prescription pills like Tic-Tacs seems to be a predominantly North American issue that is taken advantage of by people who have health coverage.

The disappointment in all of this is that nothing gets made of prevention and healthy living since this of course doesn't make anyone any money.

This is just my own personal opinion and I doubt I'm going to change your mind on this, Diginut.

Sorry for being slightly off topic though I do think that my points tie into the capitalism debate as a whole.

Unrelated yet interesting.

"It�s The Vaccines Stupid!"
Part I: Evidence Linking Autism Rise in Children to Vaccinations

by F. William Engdahl

The WHO and US Government CDC are escalating a public psychological conditioning to create hysteria and panic among an uninformed public about an alleged �virus� H1N1 Influenza A, aka Swine Flu, whose alleged effects to date appear comparable with a common cold. Before people line up in the streets demanding their vaccinations for their children and themselves, it would be wise to remember, to paraphrase a 1992 campaign statement of Bill Clinton to George H.W. Bush: �It�s the vaccination, Stupid!�



By countless scientific accounts, far more dangerous to human health than any reported incidences of Swine Flu are the dangers of severe health issues including paralysis, brain damage and even death arising from what is added to vaccines by virtually every major vaccine maker. Almost without exception, all commercial vaccines today contain various substances known as adjuvants designed to make the vaccine �work.� These adjuvants are the source of horrendous and sometimes deadly damage.



It has been speculated for some time that there might be a link in the alarming rise in cases of autism among tiny infants and children and massive multiple vaccinations today given routinely to infants and children from the first hours of birth. There is clear and shocking evidence of the link between the two. If you do not have a strong constitution, you are advised not to read further.



A new study shows a direct link between standard childhood vaccination series, MMR, and autism-like symptoms in monkeys. The principal scientist involved in the study, Dr. Laura Hewitson of the University of Pittsburgh, presented the alarming conclusions as an abstract pending publication at the International Meeting for Autism Research. It has been presented at scientific conferences in both London and Seattle, USA.

The study compared vaccinated macaque monkeys with non-vaccinated macaques. No major flaws in the study have been revealed by any attending scientist. The vaccines included the popular MMR series. The study found a marked increase in �gastrointestinal tissue gene expression� and �inflammation issues� with those monkeys which received vaccinations. They are a common symptom of children with regressive autism.


The study also found marked behavior changes and development differences in those monkeys given the vaccines versus those who were not. "Compared with unexposed animals, significant neuro-developmental deficits were evident for exposed animals in survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets," the study`s authors reported. "Differences in behaviors were observed between exposed and unexposed animals and within the exposed group before and after MMR vaccination."



US Government-mandated research approved by Congress was to begin this year, but the funds were rescinded in early January. Claiming "conflict of interest" because of ongoing court cases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a long-time supporter of infant vaccinations, withdrew the research plans.



The most shocking of all is the recent and now common medical practice, reinforced by an aggressive pharmaceutical industry, of giving multiple vaccines, often virtually within hours of birth, to infants despite the fact that no study including all of the vaccine series commonly given to children in the US and UK, about 30 in all, has been conducted until now. The practice of newborn multiple vaccinations has become widespread in Germany and other EU countries over the past decade. Significantly there have surfaced reports of dramatically increased instances of autism in newborn and infants in various German hospitals over the past decade, precisely the period multiple vaccinations of newborn and infants has become routine.

US Government coverup


Tragically, the US Government agency theoretically entrusted with guarding public health, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as with the case of health dangers of GMO foods, as well with the dramatic evidence of the link between autism and adjuvants used in typical vaccines, is accepting the argument of big and politically powerful Pharmaceutical companies.

The Food and Drug Administration considers vaccines safe but, just as with GMO, they have done no studies into the effects of multiple vaccinations as given in the common childhood series which started in the 1990s in the USA and spread to the UK and now across the EU.

According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., son of the late Attorney General and an attorney active in campaigning to expose mercury (Thimerosal) and other toxicity dangers in vaccines, recently stated, �as autism is a behavioral affliction rather than a precisely defined biological injury -- epidemiological studies are critical to establishing its causation. But the greatest source of epidemiological data is the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) -- the government maintained medical records of hundreds of thousands of vaccinated children -- which Health and Human Services Department has gone to great lengths to keep out of the hands of plaintiffs' attorneys and independent scientists�The raw data collected in the VSD would undoubtedly provide the epidemiological evidence needed to understand the relationship between vaccines and autism. The absence of such studies makes it easy for judges to say to plaintiffs they have not met their burden of proving causation.�

Autism was virtually unknown in the United States until 1943 when it was diagnosed and identified eleven months after Thimerosal, a mercury-based vaccine �adjuvant� was first added to baby vaccines along with various aluminium compounds in the United States. Thimerosal is often used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines despite massive evidence of its severe effects as a potent neurotoxin. Following independent studies, Russia, Japan, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Britain have banned Thimersol from childrens� vaccines. Germany to date has no such ban. The toxin was developed in 1930 by Eli Lilly. Tragically in 1991, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary the US Government�s Center for Disease Control (CDC), the same agency fuelling the current hysteria over the non-proven H1N1 Swine Flu virus danger, recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-containing vaccines in some cases within 24 hours of birth for Hepatitis B and two months for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

Before 1989 US pre-school children received eleven vaccinations�polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR). By 1999, because of the various CDC recommendations, the number of vaccinations was twenty two before first grade of school. Parallel with this explosive rise in vaccinations of the very young in the United States, according to Kennedy, the rate of autism among children. The state of Iowa reported a 700% increase in autism in children beginning in the 1990�s and along with California has banned mercury in vaccines. Despite evidence, however the US FDA continues to allow drug makers to include Thimerosal in numerous over-the-counter non-prescription medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. The US Government ships vaccines preserved with Thimerosal to numerous developing countries as well, where some are reporting sudden explosion of autism rates as well. In China, where autism was unknown before introduction of Thimerosal by US drug makers in 1999, press reports indicate there are almost two million autistic children.

Instances of autism in the US exploded as some 40 million children were injected during the 1990�s with Thimersol-based vaccines, giving them unprecedented accumulations of mercury poison. The level of ethylmercury in a vaccine routinely given then to children of two months age was 99 times greater than the US Government�s daily limit for exposure. As with the current WHO pandemic declaration around H1N1 Swine Flu, the CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee is filled with scientists with close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Sam Katz, chairman of the committee was a paid consultant to most companies producing the vaccines he �recommended.�

The aluminium danger remains

While vaccines available in the US today exist with no Thimerosal (50% mercury), virtually all vaccines still contain aluminum, which has been linked to impaired neurological development in children. Aluminum has not replaced thimerosal as a vaccine preservative; it has always been used in vaccines.

In the recent past, most US chioldren got exposed to both thimerosal and aluminum simultaneously with the hepatitis B, Hib, DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) and pneumococcal vaccines. Combining mercury with aluminum increases the likelihood that the mercury will damage human tissue.

According to a recent report by Michael Wagnitz, an American chemist, �Currently eight childhood vaccines that contain aluminum ranging from 125 to 850 micrograms (mcg). These vaccines are administered 17 times in the first 18 months of life, an almost six-fold increase compared to the vaccine schedule of the 1980s.�

Wagnitz adds, �According to the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, based on IV feeding solutions, a child should not exceed a maximum daily dose of 5 mcg of aluminum per kilogram of weight per day. That means if a child weighs 11 pounds, the child should not exceed 25 mcg in a day. This level was determined to be the maximum safety limit based on a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Aluminum Neurotoxicity in Preterm Infants Receiving Intravenous Feeding Solutions."

The hepatitis B vaccine, administered at birth, contains 250 mcg.

In a 1996 policy statement, "Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children," the American Academy of Pediatrics states, "Aluminum can cause neurological harm. People with kidney disease who build up bloodstream levels of aluminum greater than 100 mcg per liter are at risk of toxicity. The toxic threshold of aluminum in the bloodstream may be lower than 100 mcg per liter." What level of aluminium toxicity is contained in vaccines routinely given German, French and other children n the EU is not known. It might be time for a public demand for such information to be disclosed, and before governments launch mass vaccination campaigns for untested vaccines against a non-proven H1N1 Swine Flu threat.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut By just about every non-revisionist history book?

I believe that most historians would label Hitler as a fascist, not a socialist.

quote:

Indeed. But I never used the word "evil". And I believe Jay's point was not necessarily that socialism is evil, but that it's no less "evil" than capitalism. Although I can't say I'm surprised by the misinterpretation and ensuing knee-jerk reactions.

When speaking of Hitler, one should be prepared for both knee-jerk reactions and associations with evil, just comes with the territory. Both socialism and capitalism have produced great evils, that is just a given and anyone who argues otherwise is ignorant.

quote:

Because they can't get elected on that platform. Does not mean that it isn't their real intent, and does not apply in states where governments are not elected (they don't "argue for" anything there, they just do it).

Of course they can't get elected on that platform, and I hope they wouldn't. But that doesn't mean their real intent is to rid the world of private property.

quote:

Michael Moore and other "socialists" have never offered any viable alternative/reform except to impose more taxes and socialize more enterprises. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is. While it may be true that they don't argue for the total elimination of capitalism, the problem is that they always blame capitalism for every societal ill and are never content with any amount of free enterprise. If it isn't big tobacco, it's plastics, or forestry, or insurance, or some other industry. Eliminate one, and they'll move onto attacking another one. It never ends.

Moore has argued for the socialization of health care, I don't see why that is such a bad thing. I don't think he blames capitalism for every societal ill, but I do agree that a "smoothing out" of capitalism will lead to a better society over all.

quote:

And it's clear here that you are, in fact, a socialist, because you start from the premise that a business needs a "legitimate reason" to be "privately run." Anybody who isn't a socialist would start with the assumption that all businesses would be privately run, and ask for a legitimate reason for it to be socialized.

I was speaking in the context of large enterprises such as health care or national defense, of course the average business does not need a legitimate reason to be privately run.

quote:

That's exactly how the American system works today. It's amazing how many people feel free to criticize the system while being totally ignorant of how it actually works. A hospital is not allowed to refuse treatment to somebody without funds or insurance; that is the "basic care." I'm fine with the way some European states do it too, like Germany, but that doesn't prove that a privately-run (but heavily regulated) system as in the USA can't succeed just as well.

The problem is, once the basic care is provided, that person is stuck with a huge hospital bill, that just does not seem right to me. Proper health care should not be incentivised by profit.

quote:

Should the government also be buying our food and housing, then? Should they pay for our water and electricity? These are all essential services.

No, but I would trust the electricity grid and water treatment in the hands of the government rather than a for-profit corporation. If you are asking if the government should provide a certain standard of living to society, then I think it can, and it should. Especially in rich countries such as Canada and America.

quote:

I'd love to see these studies which show that government-run social programs perform better than their private-enterprise equivalents. Show me just ONE of these.

I will dig some up, but for every one I find, you will probably find one as well. Like I said, these studies swing either way, there is no definitive answer and if you think that I am arguing that EVERY business would be better run by the government, I am not.

quote:

And if you have so much trouble imagining it, why don't you see for yourself? Maybe, like most aspects of capitalism, the system is more complex than you realize and it works because of all the intrinsic checks and balances, and neither requires nor benefits from central planning. Don't be wilfully ignorant.

Willfully ignorant is the last thing I would describe myself as. I know that the capitalist system is indeed complex, but I think it fails due to the lack of intrinsic checks and balances. What I - and to a certain extent Micheal Moore - are arguing for is just that; more checks and balances to the capitalist system.

Blind faith in the markets is a bad thing, likewise, depending on the government to run everything is also wrong.

quote:

Or just don't harp on the U.S. system when you know next to nothing about it.

I didn't harp on the U.S. system, but it's clear that something needs to be done with regards to health care. I think - or at least I hope - the reason why people on the left are so critical of the U.S. is that to them (or at least to me) it represents so much unrealized potential. The country is indeed capable of great things, but it pains me and others to see so many living in poverty or so many without health care.

No matter what "label" is slapped on to represent a countries government, Capitalism still has and will have complete control over every social institution. Directly or Indirectly.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."
- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

A countries worth is not based on what it produces (GDP), what's more valuable (to the internationalist banking elite) is it's debt. As long as nations are keen on borrowing money at interest, and using our taxes to pay back this never ending debt, things will never get better.

If you look at any major conflict and see who benefits from it you will find only a few that do. Any social conflict as a result has someone sitting there with dollar signs in their eyes.

If you want a recent example, take the H1N1 Pandemic scare. People think that this is actually something worth worrying about because less than 1% of people infected have actually died. To me it makes no sense for Obama to use part of the stimulus bill to fund the development of H1N1 vaccines. Not only Obama, but many countries including Canada, France, and Germany are also heavily funding the development of these vaccines.

Who benefits from these vaccines? Pharmaceutical companies will be racking in the cash, and I'm sure it helps the Government to have a nice scapegoat to take focus away from Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and even underlying issues within their own country.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
- Henry Ford

quote:

Originally posted by Anton

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.