Pope Attacks tax Havens

[Expounder]

This hard hitting Vatican report lays the blame for the global financial crisis at the door of "off shore tax havens". He claims they are the cause of £175bn global fiscal deficit, which is three times the entire sum of global development aid, which is robbing the poor.



Pope Benedict attacks tax havens for robbing poor and contributing to international financial crisis | World news | The Observer

[Marxist Nutter]

This hard hitting Vatican report lays the blame for the global financial crisis at the door of "off shore tax havens". He claims they are the cause of £175bn global fiscal deficit, which is three times the entire sum of global development aid, which is robbing the poor.



Pope Benedict attacks tax havens for robbing poor and contributing to international financial crisis | World news | The Observer

I think if the wealth of the catholic church (I mean just go to some churches in Rome with gold everywhere and poor people begging outside coz they are not allowed in) could go a very long way to alleviating much poverty as well - I mean that would be.... oh what's the word.....um....Christian, that's it!. I think pope Benedict should take the log out of his own eye before trying to remove the speck from his brother's.

Mind you, all that said, he does have a very good point!

[Tantal]

I think if the wealth of the catholic church (I mean just go to some churches in Rome with gold everywhere and poor people begging outside coz they are not allowed in) could go a very long way to alleviating much poverty as well - I mean that would be.... oh what's the word.....um....Christian, that's it!. I think pope Benedict should take the log out of his own eye before trying to remove the speck from his brother's.

Mind you, all that said, he does have a very good point!

Rather than your incessant complaining about capitalists, how about you and your ilk actually PRODUCE something of value, sell it, then donate the proceeds to the poor?

[Expounder]

Rather than your incessant complaining about capitalists, how about you and your ilk actually PRODUCE something of value, sell it, then donate the proceeds to the poor?

You miss the point Tantal, the Pope along with millions of others are complaining about capitalists not paying their dues[tax][ to the society they earn their money in.

£175bn would be a lot of dosh in circulation and could have made some difference.

[pauli007001]

You miss the point Tantal, the Pope along with millions of others are complaining about capitalists not paying their dues[tax][ to the society they earn their money in.

£175bn would be a lot of dosh in circulation and could have made some difference.

It sure is a lot of dosh,but to be lectured on not paying dues to the society they earn their money in,by the leader of a global money collecting machine,that is tax exempt in most nations,leaves one waiting for the punch line!!!!!!!!

[alzee]

The hypocrisy is pretty staggering, yet there in plain sight for all to see. That man's arrogance has just reached a new level!

[Tete123]

It's good to see the Pope taking a moral stand on contemporary issues such as finance, rather than war - history tells us they fail in this endeavour; I wonder why he decided that 'capitalist' moving their cash to tax havens was a worthy cause of blame, rather than lets say international defence spending which amounts to far greater totals -

World Wide Military Expenditures

Below is a table of all defence spending estimates for all nations spending $1Bn or more. Notice that the US spend almost 10 times that of their closest rival China and more than the total combined of ALL other nations. This includes around $98Bn per yr on their nuclear arsenal. Which has cost in total a low estimate of $5.8Tn (1940-1996 - Issue Brief: The Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons).



World $1100 billion 2004 est.
Rest-of-World [all but USA]$500 billion 2004 est.
United States $623 billion FY08 budget
China $65.0 billion 2004
Russia $50.0 billion
France $45.0 billion 2005
United Kingdom $42.8 billion 2005 est.
Japan $41.75 billion 2007
Germany $35.1 billion 2003
Italy $28.2 billion 2003
South Korea $21.1 billion 2003 est.
India $19.0 billion 2005 est.
Saudi Arabia $18.0 billion 2005 est.
Australia $16.9 billion 2006
Turkey $12.2 billion 2003
Brazil $9.9 billion 2005 est.
Spain $9.9 billion 2003
Canada $9.8 billion 2003
Israel $9.4 billion FY06
Netherlands $9.4 billion 2004
Taiwan $7.9 billion 2005 est.
Mexico $6.1 billion 2005 est.
Greece $5.9 billion 2004
Singapore $5.6 billion 2005
Sweden $5.5 billion 2005 est.
North Korea $5.0 billion FY02

Iran $4.3 billion 2003 est. Pakistan $4.3 billion 2005 est. Belgium $4.0 billion 2003 Norway $4.0 billion 2003 Chile $3.9 billion 2005 est. Colombia $3.5 billion 2005 Poland $3.5 billion 2002 Portugal $3.5 billion 2003 South Africa $3.5 billion 2005 est. Denmark $3.3 billion 2003 Vietnam $3.2 billion 2005 Algeria $3.0 billion 2005 est. Kuwait $3.0 billion 2005 est. [see Note 2] United Arab Emirates $2.7 billion 2005 Egypt $2.5 billion 2005 Malaysia $2.5 billion 2005 Switzerland $2.5 billion 2005 est. Morocco $2.3 billion 2005 est. Czech Republic $2.2 billion 2004 Qatar $2.2 billion 2005 Thailand $2.0 billion 2005 Angola $2.0 billion 2005 est. Finland $1.8 billion FY98/99 Argentina $1.8 billion 2005 Venezuela $1.6 billion 2005 est. Austria $1.5 billion FY01/02 Romania$1.5 billion 2005 Jordan $1.4 billion 2005 est. Indonesia $1.3 billion 2004 Iraq $1.3 billion 2005 est. Hungary $1.1 billion 2002 est. New Zealand $1.1 billion 2005 est. Bangladesh $1.0 billion 2005 est.

What is interesting, particularly as you move down the table, is how many Nations in poverty, who benefit from charitably donations (aid) manage to spend so much on defence (which means war (attack) in many of these countries).

BANGLADESH: Which way now? - NI 332 - Aid / Bangladesh: The facts

An interesting link showing who gives what, and by what percentage and who receives what.
http://www.newint.org/issue332/Images/givers.gif

The US give just 0.1pc of GDP and rank 21st - maybe the Pope should take this moral crusade up. The link also provides information on 'tied aid' in which all aid is conditional on it being spent on products and service from the country providing the aid.

It's true that US aid amounts to nearly $10Bn a yr (although still only 0.1pc of GDP) but a high percentage of this ends up with Egypt and Israel, rather than the poorest countries of Africa.

If there is criticism that I may be focusing on the US I will explain - firstly, they are clearly the worst offenders and secondly, blame google - a American company that seem to highlight the US more than any other nation.

Apologies if this rant (of sorts) isn't clear - I threw it together in a hurry!!

[Expounder]

It's good to see the Pope taking a moral stand on contemporary issues such as finance, rather than war - history tells us they fail in this endeavour; I wonder why he decided that 'capitalist' moving their cash to tax havens was a worthy cause of blame, rather than lets say international defence spending which amounts to far greater totals -

World Wide Military Expenditures

Below is a table of all defence spending estimates for all nations spending $1Bn or more. Notice that the US spend almost 10 times that of their closest rival China and more than the total combined of ALL other nations. This includes around $98Bn per yr on their nuclear arsenal. Which has cost in total a low estimate of $5.8Tn (1940-1996 - Issue Brief: The Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons).



World $1100 billion 2004 est.
Rest-of-World [all but USA]$500 billion 2004 est.
United States $623 billion FY08 budget
China $65.0 billion 2004
Russia $50.0 billion
France $45.0 billion 2005
United Kingdom $42.8 billion 2005 est.
Japan $41.75 billion 2007
Germany $35.1 billion 2003
Italy $28.2 billion 2003
South Korea $21.1 billion 2003 est.
India $19.0 billion 2005 est.
Saudi Arabia $18.0 billion 2005 est.
Australia $16.9 billion 2006
Turkey $12.2 billion 2003
Brazil $9.9 billion 2005 est.
Spain $9.9 billion 2003
Canada $9.8 billion 2003
Israel $9.4 billion FY06
Netherlands $9.4 billion 2004
Taiwan $7.9 billion 2005 est.
Mexico $6.1 billion 2005 est.
Greece $5.9 billion 2004
Singapore $5.6 billion 2005
Sweden $5.5 billion 2005 est.
North Korea $5.0 billion FY02

Iran $4.3 billion 2003 est. Pakistan $4.3 billion 2005 est. Belgium $4.0 billion 2003 Norway $4.0 billion 2003 Chile $3.9 billion 2005 est. Colombia $3.5 billion 2005 Poland $3.5 billion 2002 Portugal $3.5 billion 2003 South Africa $3.5 billion 2005 est. Denmark $3.3 billion 2003 Vietnam $3.2 billion 2005 Algeria $3.0 billion 2005 est. Kuwait $3.0 billion 2005 est. [see Note 2] United Arab Emirates $2.7 billion 2005 Egypt $2.5 billion 2005 Malaysia $2.5 billion 2005 Switzerland $2.5 billion 2005 est. Morocco $2.3 billion 2005 est. Czech Republic $2.2 billion 2004 Qatar $2.2 billion 2005 Thailand $2.0 billion 2005 Angola $2.0 billion 2005 est. Finland $1.8 billion FY98/99 Argentina $1.8 billion 2005 Venezuela $1.6 billion 2005 est. Austria $1.5 billion FY01/02 Romania$1.5 billion 2005 Jordan $1.4 billion 2005 est. Indonesia $1.3 billion 2004 Iraq $1.3 billion 2005 est. Hungary $1.1 billion 2002 est. New Zealand $1.1 billion 2005 est. Bangladesh $1.0 billion 2005 est.

What is interesting, particularly as you move down the table, is how many Nations in poverty, who benefit from charitably donations (aid) manage to spend so much on defence (which means war (attack) in many of these countries).

BANGLADESH: Which way now? - NI 332 - Aid / Bangladesh: The facts

An interesting link showing who gives what, and by what percentage and who receives what.
http://www.newint.org/issue332/Images/givers.gif

The US give just 0.1pc of GDP and rank 21st - maybe the Pope should take this moral crusade up. The link also provides information on 'tied aid' in which all aid is conditional on it being spent on products and service from the country providing the aid.

It's true that US aid amounts to nearly $10Bn a yr (although still only 0.1pc of GDP) but a high percentage of this ends up with Egypt and Israel, rather than the poorest countries of Africa.

If there is criticism that I may be focusing on the US I will explain - firstly, they are clearly the worst offenders and secondly, blame google - a American company that seem to highlight the US more than any other nation.

Apologies if this rant (of sorts) isn't clear - I threw it together in a hurry!!

Absolutely Tete, this as well, plus the £175bn would have made a massive difference I don't know what you are doing in the Tory party you're not a Labour mole are you?

[Midas]

You miss the point Tantal, the Pope along with millions of others are complaining about capitalists not paying their dues[tax][ to the society they earn their money in.

£175bn would be a lot of dosh in circulation and could have made some difference.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that the less tax that gets paid, a large part of which is wasted by various governments, the more money as a whole there is in circulation! Wearing one of my business hats I've been involved in the offshore financial industry for over 15 years and was a director of quite a major offshore services provider for 8 years, so I have a far better grasp than many of the place that freedom from taxes plays in global economics.

'Offshore' is not just a place to hide wealth, it plays a vital part in being able to maximise the amount of available capital, most of which gets used in funding productive enterprises around the world. Quite where the Pope got his facts and figures I really don't know, but they're really a classic case of drawing a figure out of thin air then applying it to a situation where there's no relevance whatsoever!

Over the years there have been all kinds of spurious attacks on the world's offshore financial centres; they hide terrorist money, they hide drug money, and now they deprive the world's poor...... Rubbish, each and every one of them; it's estimated that over 90% of the world's terrorist and drug money is channelled through the major financial centres like London, Frankfurt, New York and Hong Kong, and if more people had more money available to them thanks to lower taxes, they might actually be able to give more to the world's poor.

The more actual cash that's in circulation, the more money gets spent, ensuring more turnover and more profitability for all those concerned, and in turn more profitability leads to more employment. As a simple example, let's say that you have £10,000 in a deposit account, earning you 6% interest. Here you'd be taxed at 30% on your interest, so after 10 years your total interest earned would amount to £5,186 (assuming interest paid quarterly). Invest that same £10,000 at 6% in a zero tax country and you would earn £8,140 after 10 years, that's close on £3,000 more to be able to spend into the economy. Apply this to people who have not just £10 thousand but £10 million on deposit and can earn not just 6% but 10%, 15% or even more. The increases are startling, and contrary to the Pope's apparent assumptions, that money doesn't just sit there depriving everyone of its benefit. 90% or more of it will go into general circulation in the economy at large, mostly through productive businesses, ultimately contributing far more than any government ever will!

[Expounder]

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that the less tax that gets paid, a large part of which is wasted by various governments, the more money as a whole there is in circulation! Wearing one of my business hats I've been involved in the offshore financial industry for over 15 years and was a director of quite a major offshore services provider for 8 years, so I have a far better grasp than many of the place that freedom from taxes plays in global economics.

'Offshore' is not just a place to hide wealth, it plays a vital part in being able to maximise the amount of available capital, most of which gets used in funding productive enterprises around the world. Quite where the Pope got his facts and figures I really don't know, but they're really a classic case of drawing a figure out of thin air then applying it to a situation where there's no relevance whatsoever!

Thanks for your guidance on this matter

Over the years there have been all kinds of spurious attacks on the world's offshore financial centres; they hide terrorist money, they hide drug money, and now they deprive the world's poor...... Rubbish, each and every one of them; it's estimated that over 90% of the world's terrorist and drug money is channelled through the major financial centres like London, Frankfurt, New York and Hong Kong, and if more people had more money available to them thanks to lower taxes, they might actually be able to give more to the world's poor.

The more actual cash that's in circulation, the more money gets spent, ensuring more turnover and more profitability for all those concerned, and in turn more profitability leads to more employment. As a simple example, let's say that you have £10,000 in a deposit account, earning you 6% interest. Here you'd be taxed at 30% on your interest, so after 10 years your total interest earned would amount to £5,186 (assuming interest paid quarterly). Invest that same £10,000 at 6% in a zero tax country and you would earn £8,140 after 10 years, that's close on £3,000 more to be able to spend into the economy. Apply this to people who have not just £10 thousand but £10 million on deposit and can earn not just 6% but 10%, 15% or even more. The increases are startling, and contrary to the Pope's apparent assumptions, that money doesn't just sit there depriving everyone of its benefit. 90% or more of it will go into general circulation in the economy at large, mostly through productive businesses, ultimately contributing far more than any government ever will!

Thanks for your guidance on this matter Midas but I think what the pope had in mind was the tax being paid into the treasury of the countries to spend as they wish would that not have made a difference to finances of the countries involved?

[Marxist Nutter]

It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that the less tax that gets paid, a large part of which is wasted by various governments, the more money as a whole there is in circulation! Wearing one of my business hats I've been involved in the offshore financial industry for over 15 years and was a director of quite a major offshore services provider for 8 years, so I have a far better grasp than many of the place that freedom from taxes plays in global economics.

'Offshore' is not just a place to hide wealth, it plays a vital part in being able to maximise the amount of available capital, most of which gets used in funding productive enterprises around the world. Quite where the Pope got his facts and figures I really don't know, but they're really a classic case of drawing a figure out of thin air then applying it to a situation where there's no relevance whatsoever!

Over the years there have been all kinds of spurious attacks on the world's offshore financial centres; they hide terrorist money, they hide drug money, and now they deprive the world's poor...... Rubbish, each and every one of them; it's estimated that over 90% of the world's terrorist and drug money is channelled through the major financial centres like London, Frankfurt, New York and Hong Kong, and if more people had more money available to them thanks to lower taxes, they might actually be able to give more to the world's poor.

The more actual cash that's in circulation, the more money gets spent, ensuring more turnover and more profitability for all those concerned, and in turn more profitability leads to more employment. As a simple example, let's say that you have £10,000 in a deposit account, earning you 6% interest. Here you'd be taxed at 30% on your interest, so after 10 years your total interest earned would amount to £5,186 (assuming interest paid quarterly). Invest that same £10,000 at 6% in a zero tax country and you would earn £8,140 after 10 years, that's close on £3,000 more to be able to spend into the economy. Apply this to people who have not just £10 thousand but £10 million on deposit and can earn not just 6% but 10%, 15% or even more. The increases are startling, and contrary to the Pope's apparent assumptions, that money doesn't just sit there depriving everyone of its benefit. 90% or more of it will go into general circulation in the economy at large, mostly through productive businesses, ultimately contributing far more than any government ever will!

Big Business do not help the poor, Midas, (they exploit them for their own gain). What you say only works in economic theory! If it really worked there would not be 1 person dying every 3 seconds of poverty would there (best empirical evidence that capitalism is failing as the IMF enforce neo liberal polices on all poor states, this has made some businesses a lot of money but the poor still stay poor)? Businesses only help the rich. I know this goes against the theory, but the the USSR went against communist theory too. You are making the same mistakes the left made last century!

This adherence to economic models has driven people into poverty, when will people learn that neo-liberal theory does not work any better than communism. what happens when you remove the ceteris paribus clause from economic theory - it falls apart and this is what happens in real life becoz all other things do not remain equal.

This theory is just a way to justify why the richest people and businesses should not pay tax while the poorest people do.

[Marxist Nutter]

It's good to see the Pope taking a moral stand on contemporary issues such as finance, rather than war - history tells us they fail in this endeavour; I wonder why he decided that 'capitalist' moving their cash to tax havens was a worthy cause of blame, rather than lets say international defence spending which amounts to far greater totals -

World Wide Military Expenditures

Below is a table of all defence spending estimates for all nations spending $1Bn or more. Notice that the US spend almost 10 times that of their closest rival China and more than the total combined of ALL other nations. This includes around $98Bn per yr on their nuclear arsenal. Which has cost in total a low estimate of $5.8Tn (1940-1996 - Issue Brief: The Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons).



World $1100 billion 2004 est.
Rest-of-World [all but USA]$500 billion 2004 est.
United States $623 billion FY08 budget
China $65.0 billion 2004
Russia $50.0 billion
France $45.0 billion 2005
United Kingdom $42.8 billion 2005 est.
Japan $41.75 billion 2007
Germany $35.1 billion 2003
Italy $28.2 billion 2003
South Korea $21.1 billion 2003 est.
India $19.0 billion 2005 est.
Saudi Arabia $18.0 billion 2005 est.
Australia $16.9 billion 2006
Turkey $12.2 billion 2003
Brazil $9.9 billion 2005 est.
Spain $9.9 billion 2003
Canada $9.8 billion 2003
Israel $9.4 billion FY06
Netherlands $9.4 billion 2004
Taiwan $7.9 billion 2005 est.
Mexico $6.1 billion 2005 est.
Greece $5.9 billion 2004
Singapore $5.6 billion 2005
Sweden $5.5 billion 2005 est.
North Korea $5.0 billion FY02

Iran $4.3 billion 2003 est. Pakistan $4.3 billion 2005 est. Belgium $4.0 billion 2003 Norway $4.0 billion 2003 Chile $3.9 billion 2005 est. Colombia $3.5 billion 2005 Poland $3.5 billion 2002 Portugal $3.5 billion 2003 South Africa $3.5 billion 2005 est. Denmark $3.3 billion 2003 Vietnam $3.2 billion 2005 Algeria $3.0 billion 2005 est. Kuwait $3.0 billion 2005 est. [see Note 2] United Arab Emirates $2.7 billion 2005 Egypt $2.5 billion 2005 Malaysia $2.5 billion 2005 Switzerland $2.5 billion 2005 est. Morocco $2.3 billion 2005 est. Czech Republic $2.2 billion 2004 Qatar $2.2 billion 2005 Thailand $2.0 billion 2005 Angola $2.0 billion 2005 est. Finland $1.8 billion FY98/99 Argentina $1.8 billion 2005 Venezuela $1.6 billion 2005 est. Austria $1.5 billion FY01/02 Romania$1.5 billion 2005 Jordan $1.4 billion 2005 est. Indonesia $1.3 billion 2004 Iraq $1.3 billion 2005 est. Hungary $1.1 billion 2002 est. New Zealand $1.1 billion 2005 est. Bangladesh $1.0 billion 2005 est.

What is interesting, particularly as you move down the table, is how many Nations in poverty, who benefit from charitably donations (aid) manage to spend so much on defence (which means war (attack) in many of these countries).

BANGLADESH: Which way now? - NI 332 - Aid / Bangladesh: The facts

An interesting link showing who gives what, and by what percentage and who receives what.
http://www.newint.org/issue332/Images/givers.gif

The US give just 0.1pc of GDP and rank 21st - maybe the Pope should take this moral crusade up. The link also provides information on 'tied aid' in which all aid is conditional on it being spent on products and service from the country providing the aid.

It's true that US aid amounts to nearly $10Bn a yr (although still only 0.1pc of GDP) but a high percentage of this ends up with Egypt and Israel, rather than the poorest countries of Africa.

If there is criticism that I may be focusing on the US I will explain - firstly, they are clearly the worst offenders and secondly, blame google - a American company that seem to highlight the US more than any other nation.

Apologies if this rant (of sorts) isn't clear - I threw it together in a hurry!!

Very good point. This issue used to be raised repeatedly with regard to the USSR but since that collapsed has not received as much press.

[Tantal]

Big Business do not help the poor, Midas, (they exploit them for their own gain). What you say only works in economic theory!

What utter crap. Who feeds people? Generally, it's large agri-business. Who produces clothing? Businesses. The computer I'm typing on? Panasonic (business). The truck I'm sitting in? Ford (BIG business). The wireless internet connection I'm using? Verizon (business). The energy to run my home, including climate control? Business.

I find it odd that so many in academia hate capitalism with such a fury. Maybe you haven't realized it, but your complete professional existence is supported by siphoning dollars out of the capitalist system......either through taxes, or by charging outrageous tuition rates to the children of capitalists. Where would you be if there were no commerce to tax? If these capitalists decided to just teach their children business on their own rather than sending them to be brainwashed by leftist professors? That's right, you'd be standing in a bread line and wailing that these evil capitalists weren't footing the bill for your "study". Only in a completely screwed-up society would capitalists be forced to fund the fashioning of tools of their own destruction, but that's exactly what we have in modern academia.

Who is John Galt?

[Marxist Nutter]

What utter crap. Who feeds people? Generally, it's large agri-business. Who produces clothing? Businesses. The computer I'm typing on? Panasonic (business). The truck I'm sitting in? Ford (BIG business). The wireless internet connection I'm using? Verizon (business). The energy to run my home, including climate control? Business.

I will repeat one person dies every 3 seconds of poverty. The system is failing just like communism did. It does not take academics to bring it down.

Large business produces things that it then sells at a profit that is not only an exploitation of workers (classical Marxist economics) but also excludes the poor from the right to clothing food and even TO LIVE (Chomsky)

I find it odd that so many in academia hate capitalism with such a fury. Maybe you haven't realized it, but your complete professional existence is supported by siphoning dollars out of the capitalist system......either through taxes, or by charging outrageous tuition rates to the children of capitalists. Where would you be if there were no commerce to tax? If these capitalists decided to just teach their children business on their own rather than sending them to be brainwashed by leftist professors? That's right, you'd be standing in a bread line and wailing that these evil capitalists weren't footing the bill for your "study".

(I paid/ am still paying for my own study btw. )

Only in a completely screwed-up society would capitalists be forced to fund the fashioning of tools of their own destruction, but that's exactly what we have in modern academia.

"capitalists are their own gravediggers" - K.Marx

[/quote]

[Tantal]

I will repeat one person dies every 3 seconds of poverty.

Large business produces things that it then sells at a profit that is not only an exploitation of workers (classical Marxist economics) but also excludes the poor from the right to clothing food and even TO LIVE (Chomsky)

(I paid/ am still paying for my own study btw. )
"capitalists are their own gravediggers" - K.Marx

Those dying of poverty are dying in the Peoples' Paradises of workers and peasants, not in the U.S. or U.K.

If the workers don't want to be exploited, then maybe they should find alternate employment. Tired of being "exploited", my cousin started his own business making custom cabinets. He does quite well for himself.

As for food and clothing, nobody has a RIGHT to any of it. They are commodities to be bought and sold. To suggest that they're a RIGHT means that someone has a RESPONSIBILITY to provide it to them free of charge.

How do you pay for that education of yours? Teaching? Research? Surely you understand that it's the evil capitalists that provide for your sustenance through their taxes and tuition for their kids. That's the problem with lefties. Whenever their goods and ideas can't compete in the marketplace, they petition the government to modify the marketplace or to subsidise their incompetence outright in the name of "fairness".

You still never answered my question.......who is John Galt?

[Marxist Nutter]

Those dying of poverty are dying in the Peoples' Paradises of workers and peasants, not in the U.S. or U.K.

If the workers don't want to be exploited, then maybe they should find alternate employment. Tired of being "exploited", my cousin started his own business making custom cabinets. He does quite well for himself.

As for food and clothing, nobody has a RIGHT to any of it. They are commodities to be bought and sold. To suggest that they're a RIGHT means that someone has a RESPONSIBILITY to provide it to them free of charge.

How do you pay for that education of yours? Teaching? Research? Surely you understand that it's the evil capitalists that provide for your sustenance through their taxes and tuition for their kids. That's the problem with lefties. Whenever their goods and ideas can't compete in the marketplace, they petition the government to modify the marketplace or to susibise their incompetence outright in the name of "fairness".

You still never answered my question.......who is John Galt?

1st I'd like to say it is nice to debating you again, i thought u'd given up with me!!

2. Payed for my education first by loans for my first degree, and for my masters I managed to save up enough money from working as a homelessness project manager where I lived in.

3. People dying in poverty often do not live in communist countries but rather countries with enforced neo liberal regimes courtesy of the IMF and world bank also there are people living in abject poverty in the UK and no doubt in the USA too. So without checking I can be 99% confident that you are wrong on this as with so many of your points.

4. I simply disagree that nobody has the right to live free from poverty

5. John Galt, i believe is from a work of fiction (not one I've read) much like most of your remarks

[Tantal]

Payed for my education first by loans for my first degree, and for my masters I managed to save up enough money from working as a homelessness project manager where I lived in.

OK. So you paid for your first degree using money invested by capitalists that the bank then loaned to you. What if the capitalists had never invested in the bank? Where would you have obtained the money? Then, you worked as a project manager for a homeless shelter. Admirable work, but where did the funds come from to operate the shelter and to pay your salary? It came from one of two places. It was either donated to churches who then funded the project, or it was pilfered from the pockets of capitalists by the government.

Face it, Nutter. You hate capitalism, but the world would crumble without it.

[Marxist Nutter]

OK. So you paid for your first degree using money invested by capitalists that the bank then loaned to you. What if the capitalists had never invested in the bank? Where would you have obtained the money? Then, you worked as a project manager for a homeless shelter. Admirable work, but where did the funds come from to operate the shelter and to pay your salary? It came from one of two places. It was either donated to churches who then funded the project, or it was pilfered from the pockets of capitalists by the government.

Face it, Nutter. You hate capitalism, but the world would crumble without it.

The funds for the shelter came from charitable donations and a bit of government subsidy - so good old fashioned taxation, but mainly from donations. But then I was taxed too remember so not all taxation comes from the pockets of capitalists . Also workers are not the same as capitalists (you may wanna check this by reading some Marx )

The loan is kinda paid for by me, is that not the point of the loan, oh and is government funded coz otherwise only the rich would go to uni, so again pure capitalism needs to be curtailed to stop it producing horrible exclusionary results. Private sector would not have done this on their own!

So all in all once again you help me make the case that capitalism often fails. Thanks but i really dont need the help. the one person dying every 3 seconds bit, in my view, is plenty to show why capitalism does not work, and when it does it needs governments to step in to stop the poor being completely exploited as with the case of university tuition. I mean if only the rich went to uni, in this country, we'd have appalling academic standards compared to the rest of the world.

[Tantal]

I guess that's just where we differ. I paid for mine as I went by working full-time while going to school. Of course my evil capitalist imperial swine parents kicked-in a little too, as I will when my own children are in college. As for Mrs. Tantal, she attended a very exclusive and expensive university. Rather than squealing to the government that they should force the taxpayers to fund my wife's education, I went to the bank and borrowed the money from some evil capitalist pigs who demanded that I pay (gasp) INTEREST on the money they gave me. Well, 8 years after her graduation I'm still paying the loans back and will be for the foreseeable future. I don't mind though. That's how the system works and I'm quite comfortable with it. I'd rather pay the money with interest than to be so weak as to demand that my government take the money from them by force and hand it to me.

[Marxist Nutter]

I guess that's just where we differ. I paid for mine as I went by working full-time while going to school. Of course my evil capitalist imperial swine parents kicked-in a little too, as I will when my own children are in college. As for Mrs. Tantal, she attended a very exclusive and expensive university. Rather than squealing to the government that they should force the taxpayers to fund my wife's education, I went to the bank and borrowed the money from some evil capitalist pigs who demanded that I pay (gasp) INTEREST on the money they gave me. Well, 8 years after her graduation I'm still paying the loans back and will be for the foreseeable future. I don't mind though. That's how the system works and I'm quite comfortable with it. I'd rather pay the money with interest than to be so weak as to demand that my government take the money from them by force and hand it to me.

Not really very different Tantal, i worked all night when i was an undergrad too!
I'm also still paying back the loans (well not right now) but have been and will be for the foreseeable future too, with compound interest.

Is this some kind of admission that you can't answer my points - AGAIN? Coz otherwise I'm not sure what your post is meant to show??? Oh well no doubt we won't be debating for a while, until you once again get back the courage to face the challenge of the Nutter

[Tantal]

Is this some kind of admission that you can't answer my points - AGAIN? Coz otherwise I'm not sure what your post is meant to show??? Oh well no doubt we won't be debating for a while, until you once again get back the courage to face the challenge of the Nutter

Oh, you mean your point that capitalism always fails? WRONG.

The only failures of capitalism are due to leftists trying to erode half of it, then twist and manipulate what's left for their own gain. Even with our current crisis, the U.S. is still the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world.......and it's capitalism that made us this way, not socialism. All of the medical and technological breakthroughs of the past 200 years have been due to capitalism. If not for capitalism, we probably wouldn't have broadband internet access, cable television, portable MRI machines, etc.

Nutter, if you were to spend 20 years of your life researching a cure for cancer and found it, what would your discovery be worth? Who would get the privilege of determining a value for your efforts? The legislature? The Prime Minister? Some bureaucracy? The point is that nobody's going to devote that much of their time, energy, and resources with no hope of a payout at the end. You kill the hope of the payout, you kill the incentive to invent. Further, once the government is given the power to determine salaries, where's the incentive to excel?

[Marxist Nutter]

Oh, you mean your point that capitalism always fails? WRONG.

The only failures of capitalism are due to leftists trying to erode half of it, then twist and manipulate what's left for their own gain. Even with our current crisis, the U.S. is still the most economically and militarily powerful nation in the world.......and it's capitalism that made us this way, not socialism. All of the medical and technological breakthroughs of the past 200 years have been due to capitalism. If not for capitalism, we probably wouldn't have broadband internet access, cable television, portable MRI machines, etc.

Nutter, if you were to spend 20 years of your life researching a cure for cancer and found it, what would your discovery be worth? Who would get the privilege of determining a value for your efforts? The legislature? The Prime Minister? Some bureaucracy? The point is that nobody's going to devote that much of their time, energy, and resources with no hope of a payout at the end. You kill the hope of the payout, you kill the incentive to invent. Further, once the government is given the power to determine salaries, where's the incentive to excel?

So all in all once again you help me make the case that capitalism often fails.

The above quote is from me to show that i never said capitalism always fails. It is often rescued by governments and 'lefties'. I think Marx helped save capitalism too by warning of its most excessive dangers and helping capitalists change their ways.

You have this common tactic of making a straw man of not only me but also Marxism and then compounding this by conflating the two. It does you no credit to be honest.

Capitalism (or better The Market) often do work quite well, and i have never said otherwise, neo-liberalism is a different matter and that's what I most often attack. As you well know I am not in favour of an old style communist revolution. Instead I see where capitalism goes wrong and point out its failures (not the same as saying it always fails) and where it is failing (as it does fail the majority of the world),..

Your position (as i see it) is always to defend capitalism even when it is illogical to do so - hence you take exception to me saying people should have the right not to live in poverty - I mean this should be something all sensible adults could agree upon - well you would have thought?

Anyway your determination to always defend capitalism is the reason your argument often unravels and you need to resort to destroying straw men, not any lack of skill. Also this dogmatic adherence to capitalism and with it your defense of suffering would seem to clash with your chosen faith - I think you back yourself into an illogical and contradictory corner, still just my opinion

[pauli007001]

It's good to see the Pope taking a moral stand on contemporary issues such as finance, rather than war - history tells us they fail in this endeavour; I wonder why he decided that 'capitalist' moving their cash to tax havens was a worthy cause of blame, rather than lets say international defence spending which amounts to far greater totals -

World Wide Military Expenditures

Below is a table of all defence spending estimates for all nations spending $1Bn or more. Notice that the US spend almost 10 times that of their closest rival China and more than the total combined of ALL other nations. This includes around $98Bn per yr on their nuclear arsenal. Which has cost in total a low estimate of $5.8Tn (1940-1996 - Issue Brief: The Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons).



World $1100 billion 2004 est.
Rest-of-World [all but USA]$500 billion 2004 est.
United States $623 billion FY08 budget
China $65.0 billion 2004
Russia $50.0 billion
France $45.0 billion 2005
United Kingdom $42.8 billion 2005 est.
Japan $41.75 billion 2007
Germany $35.1 billion 2003
Italy $28.2 billion 2003
South Korea $21.1 billion 2003 est.
India $19.0 billion 2005 est.
Saudi Arabia $18.0 billion 2005 est.
Australia $16.9 billion 2006
Turkey $12.2 billion 2003
Brazil $9.9 billion 2005 est.
Spain $9.9 billion 2003
Canada $9.8 billion 2003
Israel $9.4 billion FY06
Netherlands $9.4 billion 2004
Taiwan $7.9 billion 2005 est.
Mexico $6.1 billion 2005 est.
Greece $5.9 billion 2004
Singapore $5.6 billion 2005
Sweden $5.5 billion 2005 est.
North Korea $5.0 billion FY02

Iran $4.3 billion 2003 est. Pakistan $4.3 billion 2005 est. Belgium $4.0 billion 2003 Norway $4.0 billion 2003 Chile $3.9 billion 2005 est. Colombia $3.5 billion 2005 Poland $3.5 billion 2002 Portugal $3.5 billion 2003 South Africa $3.5 billion 2005 est. Denmark $3.3 billion 2003 Vietnam $3.2 billion 2005 Algeria $3.0 billion 2005 est. Kuwait $3.0 billion 2005 est. [see Note 2] United Arab Emirates $2.7 billion 2005 Egypt $2.5 billion 2005 Malaysia $2.5 billion 2005 Switzerland $2.5 billion 2005 est. Morocco $2.3 billion 2005 est. Czech Republic $2.2 billion 2004 Qatar $2.2 billion 2005 Thailand $2.0 billion 2005 Angola $2.0 billion 2005 est. Finland $1.8 billion FY98/99 Argentina $1.8 billion 2005 Venezuela $1.6 billion 2005 est. Austria $1.5 billion FY01/02 Romania$1.5 billion 2005 Jordan $1.4 billion 2005 est. Indonesia $1.3 billion 2004 Iraq $1.3 billion 2005 est. Hungary $1.1 billion 2002 est. New Zealand $1.1 billion 2005 est. Bangladesh $1.0 billion 2005 est.

What is interesting, particularly as you move down the table, is how many Nations in poverty, who benefit from charitably donations (aid) manage to spend so much on defence (which means war (attack) in many of these countries).

BANGLADESH: Which way now? - NI 332 - Aid / Bangladesh: The facts

An interesting link showing who gives what, and by what percentage and who receives what.
http://www.newint.org/issue332/Images/givers.gif

The US give just 0.1pc of GDP and rank 21st - maybe the Pope should take this moral crusade up. The link also provides information on 'tied aid' in which all aid is conditional on it being spent on products and service from the country providing the aid.

It's true that US aid amounts to nearly $10Bn a yr (although still only 0.1pc of GDP) but a high percentage of this ends up with Egypt and Israel, rather than the poorest countries of Africa.

If there is criticism that I may be focusing on the US I will explain - firstly, they are clearly the worst offenders and secondly, blame google - a American company that seem to highlight the US more than any other nation.

Apologies if this rant (of sorts) isn't clear - I threw it together in a hurry!!

I dont see how this relates to the popes critisism of other wealthy organisations not paying enough,when the organisation that he is the CEO,CFO and president(Emporer)of pays no taxes at all!!!!!Nope,nothing to do with Israel or egypt or the rest of Africa.Do note that the USA give very little in cash but much of their aid is in food and is supplied by privatly funded charity,thus reducing the need for the government to give away forcibly seized money to forign nations(although they still do)!!!The American People(not via government)donate more aide to forign and domestic charities than the people of any other nation,thats them fat lazy stupid obese double quadruple cheeseburger scoffing(where is my 4 tonnes of fries) americans (can you see my 55 gallon milkshake)im talking about!!!Other nations GOVERNMENTS donate,the American people donate without the government forcing them to(although the govnt still in fact do donate)!!!!!!So i think this little chart showing govnt spending is not telling the whole story,just the forced payment not the volentary!!!

[Tete123]

I dont see how this relates to the popes critisism of other wealthy organisations not paying enough,when the organisation that he is the CEO,CFO and president(Emporer)of pays no taxes at all!!!!!Nope,nothing to do with Israel or egypt or the rest of Africa.Do note that the USA give very little in cash but much of their aid is in food and is supplied by privatly funded charity,thus reducing the need for the government to give away forcibly seized money to forign nations(although they still do)!!!The American People(not via government)donate more aide to forign and domestic charities than the people of any other nation,thats them fat lazy stupid obese double quadruple cheeseburger scoffing(where is my 4 tonnes of fries) americans (can you see my 55 gallon milkshake)im talking about!!!Other nations GOVERNMENTS donate,the American people donate without the government forcing them to(although the govnt still in fact do donate)!!!!!!So i think this little chart showing govnt spending is not telling the whole story,just the forced payment not the volentary!!!

UN reccomendation is 0.7pc of GDP so private donations of the US citizens is not relevant. Although you could support your argument with some STATISTICS - rather than just ranting about cheeseburgers, fries and Milkshakes and obesity as usual.

Oh and the point, as you seem to have missed it was - a POP at the Pope for speaking out about off-shore tax havens rather than defence spending, which is considerably higher (particularly America) and something I would have thought was closer to the PEACEFUL message expounded by the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, back up your claims with evidence or re-tract them or do neither as I truely care little for your opinions (that you are indeed entitled to).

[Marxist Nutter]

Now, back up your claims with evidence or re-tract them or do neither as I truely care little for your opinions (that you are indeed entitled to).

I also think we all know where Pauli is coming from by now, there seems little need in him re-stating himself.

[pauli007001]

I also think we all know where Pauli is coming from by now, there seems little need in him re-stating himself.

US and Foreign Aid Assistance ? Global Issues

Re state this!!!!Another of my paranoid delusions i guess!!!!!
Now the last time i posted a link showing evidenciary proof of my opinions i was banned for profane language(it was a BBC article on UN workers committing sex crimes in Dharfur)what happens now???Watch me get banned again for showing that the prejudices of people on this post are unfounded(UN all Good,above critisism,Americans All bad ,undefendable),See you when the ban is lifted,if at all!!!!!!I really must stop with the profane language!!!!!!

[Marxist Nutter]

US and Foreign Aid Assistance ? Global Issues

Re state this!!!!Another of my paranoid delusions i guess!!!!!
Now the last time i posted a link showing evidenciary proof of my opinions i was banned for profane language(it was a BBC article on UN workers committing sex crimes in Dharfur)what happens now???Watch me get banned again for showing that the prejudices of people on this post are unfounded(UN all Good,above critisism,Americans All bad ,undefendable),See you when the ban is lifted,if at all!!!!!!I really must stop with the profane language!!!!!!

I really don't know what the post has to do with the link so I will just speak to the link.

Although Adelman admitted that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still claimed that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”. While her assertions should be taken with caution, the numbers are high.

from pauli's link

The reason these numbers should be 'treated with caution' is not just becoz they are estimated but also as Tete says much of this money goes to Israel and not the most poor African countries (although some does). Propping up Israel's military may be considered charity by some - indeed many US citizens gave generously to the IRA as well, but I don't think this solitary link shows very much at all.

However despite this it is matter of record that the Bush administration gave more aid to Africa than any other administration or any other nation.

However Tete's point about defense spending still stands despite this.

[pauli007001]

UN reccomendation is 0.7pc of GDP so private donations of the US citizens is not relevant. Although you could support your argument with some STATISTICS - rather than just ranting about cheeseburgers, fries and Milkshakes and obesity as usual.

Oh and the point, as you seem to have missed it was - a POP at the Pope for speaking out about off-shore tax havens rather than defence spending, which is considerably higher (particularly America) and something I would have thought was closer to the PEACEFUL message expounded by the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, back up your claims with evidence or re-tract them or do neither as I truely care little for your opinions (that you are indeed entitled to).

The UN can keep its big expensive(free housing on manhatten)nose out of the USA,all it does is tell half truths about how and what the US gives,the US believes in FREEDOM people here give freely not some number forced on them by a bunch of overpaid handwringers who in the last 60 years have acheived a great big nothing for the benefit of mankind(ie the UN)!!!!
The Anti american tone to the two posts you made(banglasesh and defence spending) was where the response of cheeseburgers etc came from!It has been posted by others that all Americans are fat lazy ETCETC another post recently stated that Some obese guntoting redneck will soon assasinate Barak obama,no fact to back that up,nor did you demand it.Truth be told the Myth that you and MN continue to support that i am anti British is based simply on my defending Americans(i live amongst them,and know them,they are not the devils and monsters you think they are,i am the fattest of all the people i know here and i am a brit,just look at my Photo,now does that meen all brits are obese like me,or bald and ugly too)???Americans are Humans,and good people who care about their fellow men,and donate to charities at a higher rate than any other nation,i posted the evidence you demanded,but as i stated before,the last time i posted a link showing evidence the post was reported for profanity,i was banned(no profanity was involved just a BBC report),i guess this ban will be permanent!!!!

[Marxist Nutter]

The UN can keep its big expensive(free housing on manhatten)nose out of the USA,all it does is tell half truths about how and what the US gives,the US believes in FREEDOM people here give freely not some number forced on them by a bunch of overpaid handwringers who in the last 60 years have acheived a great big nothing for the benefit of mankind(ie the UN)!!!!
The Anti american tone to the two posts you made(banglasesh and defence spending) was where the response of cheeseburgers etc came from!It has been posted by others that all Americans are fat lazy ETCETC another post recently stated that Some obese guntoting redneck will soon assasinate Barak obama,no fact to back that up,nor did you demand it.Truth be told the Myth that you and MN continue to support that i am anti British is based simply on my defending Americans(i live amongst them,and know them,they are not the devils and monsters you think they are,i am the fattest of all the people i know here and i am a brit,just look at my Photo,now does that meen all brits are obese like me,or bald and ugly too)???Americans are Humans,and good people who care about their fellow men,and donate to charities at a higher rate than any other nation,i posted the evidence you demanded,but as i stated before,the last time i posted a link showing evidence the post was reported for profanity,i was banned(no profanity was involved just a BBC report),i guess this ban will be permanent!!!!

Did not realise that was you in the pic. You don't seem too fat. Also i for one have never been anti American - anti Bush and anti neocons - very much so - but not anti American. In fact I have some envy about their political system, with all its flaws it is still better than ours.

[pauli007001]

I really don't know what the post has to do with the link so I will just speak to the link.
from pauli's link

The reason these numbers should be 'treated with caution' is not just becoz they are estimated but also as Tete says much of this money goes to Israel and not the most poor African countries (although some does). Propping up Israel's military may be considered charity by some - indeed many US citizens gave generously to the IRA as well, but I don't think this solitary link shows very much at all.

However despite this it is matter of record that the Bush administration gave more aid to Africa than any other administration or any other nation.

However Tete's point about defense spending still stands despite this.

Us Defense spending is no buisness of anyone else,and as the figures are from an obviously anti american viewpoint they should also be taken with a pinch of salt,and a quadruple quadruple bacon cheeseburger with a oiltanker of chocolate thick shake(and a diet Coke)!!!!
I have stated previously that i dont thing a nation should give anything to any other nation unless it is guarenteed by that nations govnt that it will not attack the giver nor will it give assistance to those who have attacked it.Assistance to forign nations should be charitable,taxes should be reduced as they are harmfull to the taxed nation!!!

[Marxist Nutter]

Us Defense spending is no buisness of anyone else,and as the figures are from an obviously anti american viewpoint they should also be taken with a pinch of salt,and a quadruple quadruple bacon cheeseburger with a oiltanker of chocolate thick shake(and a diet Coke)!!!!
I have stated previously that i dont thing a nation should give anything to any other nation unless it is guarenteed by that nations govnt that it will not attack the giver nor will it give assistance to those who have attacked it.Assistance to forign nations should be charitable,taxes should be reduced as they are harmfull to the taxed nation!!!

I wonder if you used to say the same about the USSR's defense spending - this was to the direct detriment of its people. If the Tax is progressive I honestly can't see who it harms - the rich lose a little bit of their huge income and the poorest have food and shelter - seems like win win (the poor gain and the rich don't really suffer) , although this is a gross oversimplification (but then so are your points to be fair) it still has more than just a ring of truth about it.

[Tete123]

US and Foreign Aid Assistance ? Global Issues

Re state this!!!!Another of my paranoid delusions i guess!!!!!
Now the last time i posted a link showing evidenciary proof of my opinions i was banned for profane language(it was a BBC article on UN workers committing sex crimes in Dharfur)what happens now???Watch me get banned again for showing that the prejudices of people on this post are unfounded(UN all Good,above critisism,Americans All bad ,undefendable),See you when the ban is lifted,if at all!!!!!!I really must stop with the profane language!!!!!!

Thank you for the link - was interesting. Do grow up though Pauli.

Some interesting quotes:

Although Adelman admitted that “there are no complete figures for international private giving” she still claimed that Americans are “clearly the most generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”. While her assertions should be taken with caution, the numbers are high.


The Center for Global Prosperity, from the Hudson Institute, (whose director is Adelman) published its first Index of Global Philanthropy http://www.globalissues.org/i/pdf.gif in 2006, which contained updated numbers from those stated above. The total of US private giving, since Adelman’s previous report, had increased to a massive $71 billion in 2004. Page 16 of their report breaks it down as follows:

• International giving by US foundations: $3.4 billion
• Charitable giving by US businesses: $4.9 billion
• American NGOs: $9.7
• Religious overseas ministries: $4.5
• US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.7 billion
• Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.

While the majority of the increase was personal remittances ($18 bn in 2000 to $47 bn in 2004),


"Even if that turns out to be wrong, the other issue also is whether personal remmittances can be counted as American giving, as people point out that it is often foreign immigrant workers sending savings back to their families in other countries. Political commentator Daniel Drezner takes up this issue arguing, “Americans aren’t remitting this money—foreign nationals are.”


"Finally, Drezner suggests that Adelman is not necessarily incorrect in her core thesis that Americans are generous, but “lumping remittances in with charity flows exaggerates the generosity of Americans as a people.”

I have decided not to highlight the US's (and others) commitment to the UN 0.7pc target. The private donations of US citizens DOES NOT prevent criticism of the US Gov't falling short in their giving of aid (which is usually 'tied aid') and as your link shows this usually benefits the giver of aid as much, if not more than the receiver.

Why all the UN - GOOD , US - BAD crap??? Did I say that???

[Tete123]

Oh and why pick on defence spending -

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

— Former U.S. President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a speech on April 16, 1953

Pauli, the US spend over $600Bn per year on defence (you can question the source but it doesn't take away the fact that these figures are probably a lower end estimate rather than top end) and this is more than EVERY OTHER NATION COMBINED. $98Bn is spent on their Nuclear Arsenal - this is why I question the POPE (that was my original intention) in targeting Off Shore Tax Havens, rather than defence or WAR spending.

[pauli007001]

Oh and why pick on defence spending -

Pauli, the US spend over $600Bn per year on defence (you can question the source but it doesn't take away the fact that these figures are probably a lower end estimate rather than top end) and this is more than EVERY OTHER NATION COMBINED. $98Bn is spent on their Nuclear Arsenal - this is why I question the POPE (that was my original intention) in targeting Off Shore Tax Havens, rather than defence or WAR spending.

What has US spending on defense got to do with anyone else,if we didnt spend enough the world would still hate and harangue(WW1,WW2 are excellent examples of how Europe complained that the US didnt do enough,until of course the USA got involved,same again with regard to the Kosovo war,the US didnt spen enough,why are the brits the spearhead of the invasion,damned if they do and damned if they dont)!Do remember that the US has its defence budget tied up in defending the UK and its other Nato Allies,perhaps if the USA went back to self defence it would be better,leave the rest of the world to look after themselves,oh but then theyd all whine and wring their hands that the nasty old us werent doing enough,but if they did theyd be agressive ,damned if they do damned if they dont!!!!That would be the long and the short of it,the pope should get his own house in order(we can agree on that i think)before sticking his money sniffing nose into evryone elses buisness!!!

As for the last post?Grow up pauli?You meen dont say what happened when i posted the link to the BBC story abour Dharfur,i was banned for using profane language,even though i used not one solitary profane word,i guess being truthfull and showing concern about being banned for saying things i never said must be childish!!!Kind of like you saying i am anti British because i hate the political options that we have in the UK today and i hate Political correctness,oh and critisising the leader is critisising the people of the nation...OK.But i aint anti british,i am british,as are my kids and my granddaughter,do i hate them also????

[Tete123]

What has US spending on defense got to do with anyone else,if we didnt spend enough the world would still hate and harangue(WW1,WW2 are excellent examples of how Europe complained that the US didnt do enough,until of course the USA got involved,same again with regard to the Kosovo war,the US didnt spen enough,why are the brits the spearhead of the invasion,damned if they do and damned if they dont)!Do remember that the US has its defence budget tied up in defending the UK and its other Nato Allies,perhaps if the USA went back to self defence it would be better,leave the rest of the world to look after themselves,oh but then theyd all whine and wring their hands that the nasty old us werent doing enough,but if they did theyd be agressive ,damned if they do damned if they dont!!!!That would be the long and the short of it,the pope should get his own house in order(we can agree on that i think)before sticking his money sniffing nose into evryone elses buisness!!!

As for the last post?Grow up pauli?You meen dont say what happened when i posted the link to the BBC story abour Dharfur,i was banned for using profane language,even though i used not one solitary profane word,i guess being truthfull and showing concern about being banned for saying things i never said must be childish!!!Kind of like you saying i am anti British because i hate the political options that we have in the UK today and i hate Political correctness,oh and critisising the leader is critisising the people of the nation...OK.But i aint anti british,i am british,as are my kids and my granddaughter,do i hate them also????

We most certainly do agree that the Pope should get his own house in order, so to speak.

I was making a general point about defence spending. I did say that I find it strange that Countries that rely on aid, can afford hundreds of Mns, even Bns of pounds in funding their Armed Forces and maintaining a Nuclear Arsenal (India - the biggest recipiant of British Aid springs to mind, as does Pakistan - where the US send large quantities of Aid money). Yes I find $600Bn in defence spending obscene - 10 times more than the closest rival and more than ALL OTHER NATIONS COMBINED. I think that some of that - invested wisely in development program would alleviate some of the tensions that require the US to spend that amount, in the long term at least. Why is it my business - because it is a point of debate. The US Gvn't policies should (like you do with the UK) receive vigorous scrutiny. I do not hate the US or its people, I do find some attitudes strange and in some cases abhorent.

You argue that you are against the political system in the UK, fine. Why then when I argue against the US and its politicians and policies, do I get all the crap about obesity, burgers and labeled a bigot - Explain that for me?

Did I ban you for using profane language? Was I even a Mod when you was banned? Did I report the post in question? Pauli, the answer to all those questions is... NO! Why not just drop it, I for one am bored of hearing how you were banned for linking a BBC article about Dharfur.

[Midas]

Big Business do not help the poor, Midas, (they exploit them for their own gain). What you say only works in economic theory!

As Tantal has already pointed out, it's those very businesses which create both the wealth and employment which in turn puts money in everyone's pockets.

This adherence to economic models has driven people into poverty, when will people learn that neo-liberal theory does not work any better than communism. what happens when you remove the ceteris paribus clause from economic theory - it falls apart and this is what happens in real life becoz all other things do not remain equal.

In the same way that socialist countries are inevitably poorer than capitalist ones you mean? OK, I think we all accept that no system is perfect, and there's certainly room for improvement in the capitalist system, but it's plain crazy to effectively throw the baby out with the bathwater just because there are some aspects of a system you dislike.

This theory is just a way to justify why the richest people and businesses should not pay tax while the poorest people do.

That sounds very much like someone who has never made anything of the opportunities available to him and feels bitter and hard-done by because of it!

[Marxist Nutter]

That sounds very much like someone who has never made anything of the opportunities available to him and feels bitter and hard-done by because of it!

A good post and worth responding to. I do not quote the bits I generally agree with. I am not up for replacing capitalism with a socialist regime and in some cases the market does work well but also needs a lot of regulation to minimize exploitation that is inherent in all capitalistic modes of production.

As for this last remark. Again unlike theory we are not all rational egoists or homo economicus. Many of us are satisficers and do not want to be rich, I Just wish to have a roof over my head and not go hungry and at most enjoy a beer and the occasional spliff. Should we be punished for not being greedy wealth seeking capitalists and working on community projects and helping the poor rather than exploiting others to become rich?? Obviously you think so.

Would your perfect society (assuming you have such utopian ambitions) be one in which everybody is forced to accept the inherent rightness of liberal free market economics or starve and die?

[Tantal]

Would your perfect society (assuming you have such utopian ambitions) be one in which everybody is forced to accept the inherent rightness of liberal free market economics or starve and die?

in a word, YES. Given my education and skill level, I could easily leave public service and make a boatload of money in the private sector, but I take pleasure in serving the public......to my own financial detriment. It's good that people want to serve a noble cause, but if they get into it for the money, then how noble is it? Who should be the arbiter of what a homeless shelter worker earns? The system is designed in such a way that each employer gets the best employee for the lowest price and each employee can demand a higher price for their skills. It's a completely voluntary arrangement. Why should anyone be forced by government to accept a wage that is below their skill level? Why should an employer be forced to pay a wage higher that what the employee's service is worth to them?

[Midas]

A good post and worth responding to. I do not quote the bits I generally agree with. I am not up for replacing capitalism with a socialist regime and in some cases the market does work well but also needs a lot of regulation to minimize exploitation that is inherent in all capitalistic modes of production.

I'm very glad to hear that! The capitalist system does indeed work well in the majority of situations because one of the things it takes account of is the fact that people are by nature, both acquisitive and competitive. Wearing my bipartisan hat for a moment though, and although opposed to much of the bureaucratic government regulation we do have, I do believe that there is a case for having good and effective regulation in those places where untrammelled human nature by a small minority can have major repercussions on the majority. The current economic crisis is a good illustration of this, however it's often only in hindsight that we see this; where we've never had the same conditions before, history doesn't teach us much.

As for this last remark. Again unlike theory we are not all rational egoists or homo economicus. Many of us are satisficers and do not want to be rich, I Just wish to have a roof over my head and not go hungry and at most enjoy a beer and the occasional spliff. Should we be punished for not being greedy wealth seeking capitalists and working on community projects and helping the poor rather than exploiting others to become rich?? Obviously you think so.

No, I don't necessarily think so; if people wish to be sacrificers or are not competitive and simply want to have enough to satisfy their day to day needs, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. Each to their own and all that. As for 'being punished', no, of course what's probably a majority shouldn't be 'punished' by the actions of what is a very tiny minority, albeit a minority with great power! This is where effective regulation can play a major role. But in saying that I'm certainly not saying that everyone shouldn't have the opportunity to become as rich as they want by their own hard work and/or arcane knowledge - and to benefit from that wealth.

Would your perfect society (assuming you have such utopian ambitions) be one in which everybody is forced to accept the inherent rightness of liberal free market economics or starve and die?

Whilst I wouldn't be quite as categorical as Tantal, I would broadly say that a society where people reached their own level by dint of their own efforts would be far better than a more socialist one where the lazy and feckless can all too easily sit back and rely on the hard work of others. What I would put in place is a basic, and very well controlled, welfare net which would catch those people who were either genuinely unable to provide for themselves or who were in temporary reduced circumstances.

Earlier in this thread, Tantal asked the question "Who is John Galt?", which was never answered fully. He's one of the main characters in the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, and I'd thoroughly recommend it to anyone who is even slightly interested in the free-thinking go-getting capitalist versus the apathetic let someone else do it welfare debate. Not the easiest book to read, and certainly not the shortest, but well worth plowing through.