G8 Protests In Tokyo

[Hamaki]

[quote="CrankyBastard"]I think he runs a knocking shop! ]

I thought he was a goat herder?

[Uhhuh35]

The point is that scnadinavian welfare models might look good on the outside, but the reality is different. They are not functioning very well, and the government are really intrusive in the lives of the citizens.
We were speaking of economic freedom. Well, you are saying that economic control by the government is economic freedom. By your standards Eastern Germany must have been a haven of economic freedom. I am sorry, but it really doesn't make sense to view a place where the governments takes most of your money and takes most of the choices for you as a place of economic freedom.
But really, you should be careful to sing the praises of the Scandinavian welfare model. Lately it has been falling apart in both Denmark, Norway and Sweden. You should also consider how you can equal economic freedom with a certain form of economic control by the government. Even though you might like it, it removes power from the individual.

Lousy Freeper Troll!

[Greji]

[quote="CrankyBastard"]I think he runs a knocking shop! ]

Well, I do have a goat shed out back for cover!

[Greji]

Without prying too much, Greji, what kind of work do you do? OK, I admit I am prying and being nosy, but I also remember you saying you deal with famous people at your job.

The J-government. Where else could you get famous people, goat herds and idiots all gathered together in the same Whore House!

[Nama Ebi]

Nobody is robbing and pillaging poor countries. Poor countries need more capitalism, not less. The people in poorer countries are willing to work cheaply because it is an advantage to them, so it is hardly robbery.

That sort of fucked-up worldview is exactly why people protest these meetings to consolidate wealth among the global wealthy elite.

[Greji]

That sort of fucked-up worldview is exactly why people protest these meetings to consolidate wealth among the global wealthy elite.

A very self-explanatory post.

[maraboutslim]

People are dying here because the treatment of cancer is so bad, and the goverment is hesitant to allow private hospitals to compete in the are of cancer treatment because of egalitarian ideology.

Egalitarian ideology is not killing people of cancer. It kills people even in the freemarket health care system in the USA, including my parents at ages 49 and 58. Personally I don't think even the best, most highest paid and profitable hospitals/doctors in the world have any real weapons against cancer yet. The for-profit healthcare system does produce lots of big drug companies that are happy to sell patients expensive placebos though.

We were speaking of economic freedom. Well, you are saying that economic control by the government is economic freedom.

Sorry, but I did not say that. I said people in Norway have more economic freedom than many people in the usa. The reason I didn't think I need to spell out, but apparently do have to, is that many people in the usa don't even have enough food to eat or decent places to live or decent health to be able to enjoy their economic life. The economy has totally left them behind so that a few can afford yachts and private jets. And there are enough idiots out there convinced that they too can rise to that level someday, against high odds (uh, by definition only 1% of people can make it to the top 1%), so they let the current crop of greedy bastards get away with it instead of organizing society and culture into something that would benefit more people.

A higher percentage of Norwegians have at least a little spending money left over that they can spend freely on whatever crap they want. That's "freedom" when it comes to economics.

FWIW, overall your post came across like a rich kid who goes away to college and complains that his university cafeteria's silverware isn't really made of silver like it was back home. I mean, come on. Remember how much of the world is living in total desperation.

[hundefar]

Sorry, but I did not say that. I said people in Norway have more economic freedom than many people in the usa. The reason I didn't think I need to spell out, but apparently do have to, is that many people in the usa don't even have enough food to eat or decent places to live or decent health to be able to enjoy their economic life. The economy has totally left them behind so that a few can afford yachts and private jets. And there are enough idiots out there convinced that they too can rise to that level someday, against high odds (uh, by definition only 1% of people can make it to the top 1%), so they let the current crop of greedy bastards get away with it instead of organizing society and culture into something that would benefit more people.


FWIW, overall your post came across like a rich kid who goes away to college and complains that his university cafeteria's silverware isn't really made of silver like it was back home. I mean, come on. Remember how much of the world is living in total desperation.

FYI my mom & dad were heroin addicts when I was a child and I have taken care of myself since I was 14. So please keep focus on the matter we are discussing. However, if you wish further details about me and my background, then by all means ask. But I'd be really happy if you'd stop talking about things you don't have ANY idea about. OK? Thank you.

Egalitarian ideology is killing people, when the egalitarian state takes away peoples money so they can't afford a better treatment when they are sick, and at the same time offers them really bad healthcare. I am no fan of the US health system either, I am just telling you how it is here in Scandinavia, because you seem to know nothing about it. You say they are paying for 'services' , well their services suck!

You speak about Norway, well, let me tell you that the largest party in Norway now is Fremskrittspartiet (since last week), which is a party that was founded with the intention of making the welfare state smaller, and with the purpose of making Norwegians keep more of their hard earned money. People in Norway are fed up with getting shitty service by the state at a high cost. They are also sick of the Tax Wedge making them pay 100 norwegian kroner for a pizza (seriously, prices are even higher in Norway than here..scandinavians think that Japan is so cheap!), which means they don't have a lot left over to themselves.

You are saying that the socialist-ish redistribution of wealth is economic freedom. It is not. It is unfree because it takes away the choice of individuals, and makes for a rigid and ineffective society. You are mistaking socialist redistribution of wealth by a very controlling state, with economic freedom. That is why I said what I did about Eastern Germany, because there was also a redistribution there and everyone was taken care of by the state. You should be able to see that such arrangements have nothing to do with freedom. You may think that the socialdemocratic welfare state is great, but I am just telling you that there are a lot of problems and the Scandinavian welfare model is under pressure right now, because many people are fed up with it in many way. It is not as great as you think. It is making people so much poorer in the ways already described. The Scandinavian welfare state comes with a very high price. There are so many myths about Scandinavia, I am just trying to tell you that the picture is more complex.

To get back to the G8 summit protests, it is important to know that the Scandinavian countries only made themselves welfare states when they had enough money to afford it. Denmark was one of the lowest taxed countries in Europe back in the day and had a dynamic economy. It was a wealthy country and could only become that because it had such an economy. So even if one thinks that a welfare state is a great idea, one has to realise that such a state does not make you rich. You need somebody to make the money, so you have something to redistribute. For poorer countries that means that they have to embrace capitalism at least for a while, until they become so rich that they can afford such luxury as a welfare state. They are not going to get wealthy by giving each other social security checks. Therefore it seems rather silly when people are protesting against capitalism, because I don't see how else these countries should ever get the money. If one should protest, then one should demand more free trade (or just REAL free trade), so it would be easier for poor nations to sell us their goods.

Until now there has not been a better method than capitalism and free trade to generate wealth.

[Uhhuh35]

I said people in Norway have more economic freedom than many people in the usa. The reason I didn't think I need to spell out, but apparently do have to, is that many people in the usa don't even have enough food to eat or decent places to live or decent health to be able to enjoy their economic life. The economy has totally left them behind so that a few can afford yachts and private jets. And there are enough idiots out there convinced that they too can rise to that level someday, against high odds (uh, by definition only 1% of people can make it to the top 1%), so they let the current crop of greedy bastards get away with it instead of organizing society and culture into something that would benefit more people.

Oh yeah, it really sucks here in the USA. It sucks so bad that illegal aliens risk their lives to come here. Unemployment is up to five percent. I forget, is that half as much or double the rate of France and Germany? Oh yeah, it's half. And just who the fuck is "They"? Oh let me guess: The Hairy Hand of the White man or The Jooooooooooooooos?
Look up Louis Farakhan to learn more racism!
Considering your views on the US I have to ask this question: Are you related to FG Buraku or do you just watch CNN all the time? I already figured you like the Socialist Barack Obama.

Remember how much of the world is living in total desperation.

Well whose fuckin' fault is that? Is that supposed to make us feel bad? Fuck that and fuck you! If I lived in a crappy country, I would either work to make it better or move out. It's not my fault some countries suck ass.

[hundefar]

Lousy Freeper Troll!

I had to google 'freeper'

[Gilligan]

The economy has totally left them behind so that a few can afford yachts and private jets. And there are enough idiots out there convinced that they too can rise to that level someday, against high odds (uh, by definition only 1% of people can make it to the top 1%), so they let the current crop of greedy bastards get away with it instead of organizing society and culture into something that would benefit more people.

This reminds me of the old joke about 50 physicists, 50 mathematicians, and 100 naked women.

There were 50 mathematicians and 50 physicists lined up at one end of a football field with 100 naked women lined up at the other end. The mathematicians and the physicists were told that they could have the women under one condition: they first had to walk half way and then stop. Then they had to walk half way from where they stopped, and stop. And halfway again and stop. And halfway again and stop. And continue in that fashion. Upon hearing this, the mathematicians all left knowing that they would never be able to reach the women. The physicists, however, immediately set upon the task, knowing that, while they would never actually reach the women they would get close enough to make it worth while. (OK, maybe it's not that old to you, but my brother's a physicist, so I first heard it a long time ago).

BTW maraboutslim, since I'm not totally convinced that you'll get the joke, you're a mathematician here.

Think of it like this: the position of people in a market-based economy is like the position of people in the line for a movie--there's always someone at the end of the line, but the person who was at the end of the line 10 minutes ago usually isn't the person who's at the end now, and the person who's at the end of the line now isn't likely to be the person at the end of the line 10 minutes from now.

[maraboutslim]

Faulty analogy: there aren't 100 women waiting at the line for 100 men. If there were, we'd have an economic system more like what I'm proposing (where at least basic needs are met for everyone). In your economy, there are 100 women but they get distributed 20 for one guy, 15 for another guy, five each for the next three guys and then there are 50 women left over for the other 95 guys to fight over.

On your second point, there is very little economic mobility in a place like the USA. Whether the scale is families, generations, ethnic groups, or entire geographical areas, movement up the ladder has proven more difficult as time goes by. Don't be fooled by anecdotes. Sure, "anyone" can make it in the usa. But "everyone" clearly can't. The system requires losers. In fact, it requires more losers today than it did, say, fifty years ago.

Which society should we be more proud of: the one with the highest top or the one with the highest bottom?

[Gilligan]

Faulty analogy: there aren't 100 women waiting at the line for 100 men. If there were, we'd have an economic system more like what I'm proposing (where at least basic needs are met for everyone). In your economy, there are 100 women but they get distributed 20 for one guy, 15 for another guy, five each for the next three guys and then there are 50 women left over for the other 95 guys to fight over.

On your second point, there is very little economic mobility in a place like the USA. Whether the scale is families, generations, ethnic groups, or entire geographical areas, movement up the ladder has proven more difficult as time goes by. Don't be fooled by anecdotes. Sure, "anyone" can make it in the usa. But "everyone" clearly can't. The system requires losers. In fact, it requires more losers today than it did, say, fifty years ago.

Which society should we be more proud of: the one with the highest top or the one with the highest bottom?

The fact is, it's an empirical question, so instead of sitting around in your room contemplating what the answer may or may nor be, why not look for what it really is? Oh yeah, because you'd find that you're wrong.

A New York Times poll finds that 45 percent of the people surveyed say their present economic status is higher than what they started with. This, compared to 38 percent who said their status was the same, and 18 percent who said they are worse off today than when they were younger.

Many observers say achieving upward mobility today depends on the same things needed in previous times: ambition, determination, learning the right skills and strong work ethics. They say that despite a tough playing field, those willing to make the effort still have the opportunity to reach the goal of success.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

Oh, and BTW it's not even close to a faulty analogy. You said it wasn't worth people trying to get close to the top 1% of US earners because they'd never be able to make it; I said that while they wouldn't be able to make it, they'd be able to get close enought to make it worth while. If you spent less time drinking the Kool-aid and more time thinking about what was in the Kool-aid, you'd get it.

[maraboutslim]

Did you read the article? Quote:

"Recent figures from the U.S. Congressional Budget Office show a widening gap between the rich and the rest of American society. The CBO reports that from 1979 to 2001, the after-tax income of the wealthiest one percent of U-S households rose 139 percent. Families in the middle 20 percent of the economic spectrum saw only a 17 percent gain, while for those in the bottom fifth of the economy, after-tax income only went up by nine percent."

In other words, US households are NOT moving up the escalator: they are being left behind. Sure, they have higher incomes than they used to, but i've already posted my argument on the ridiculousness of comparing the present to the past.

[maraboutslim]

They say that despite a tough playing field, those willing to make the effort still have the opportunity to reach the goal of success.

Statements like this drive me nuts. They are phony attempts to justify wealth and greed by convincing those that don't have it that if they had just worked harder, they could have gotten the wealth as well. But of course if they had all worked hard, still only one or two could make it to the top because of the way our economic system is set up: it promotes a few becoming very wealthy, at the expense of the rest. And that's what we're talking about here, isn't it?

I'm not saying it's impossible for one baby born in poverty to rise up to be "rich". I'm expressing displeasure with the fact that because of the unequal distribution of wealth the US economic system promotes, only one out of 100 such babies will be rich. And that one baby will be insanely rich and control much more of the buying power than they really have any use for or any moral justification for.

I'd much rather have a system by which we sacrifice the opportunity to become insanely rich for the guarantee that many more of those babies will grow up to make a good enough living to afford education (for education's sake), healthcare, and plenty of leisure time. Which sounds better to you: one billionaire or 100,000 families boosting their income by $10,000?

How would we get there? By things like employers paying their employees higher wages and skimming less off the top for themselves; by a cultural shift that makes helping others more satisfying than stockpiling wealth or trinkets; by stopping investment schemes that work on controlling supply/demand of necessities (e.g. asshole buys up a bunch of single-family homes, thereby lessing supply, thereby driving up cost that new family will have to pay for their shelter: how can one be happy about making money by doing that?); you know, that kind of thing... piece of cake, right?

[Jack]

Actually communism does not even work in theory, as proven by Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

You are wrong when you say that capitalism requires a winner and a loser. You are assuming that the economy is a zero sum game, which is it not. I recommend that you brush up on economic theory (and I don't mean Marx).

the economy is a zero sum game unless you are exporting.

[Jack]

well, I live in a country where the top tax rate is anywhere from 45% to 52% depending on which province you live and kicks in at $75,000 per year. Plus we pay 13% to 15% sales tax on everything you buy including a car, a house or a private plane (except alberta where sales tax is just 5%).

In exchange, we get an army that the whole world laughs at, third-world grade healthcare system when available at all, no public transit to speak of except in Montreal and Toronto where there is small metro network; and roads and bridges that are crumbling. It's a fucking disgrace that this country is even a member of the G8.

On second thoughts, nah, give me my taxes back and I'll buy my own health care.

[maraboutslim]

It's not cheap: here in San Francisco it's over $1300/month for a lame Blue Cross HMO plan, which will still require you to pay co-pay amounts for various services and also has a maximum amount of coverage.

[kurohinge1]

[SIZE="4"]It's a riot in the Japanese police... if only[/SIZE]

There are few more forlorn and pointless occupations in the world than that of the Japanese riot police. Consider their situation - plucked from the ranks for their intelligence and fitness, trained over several years in marksmanship, crowd control and the most lethal of the martial arts, then set loose in a country with the same level of civil unrest as Legoland.

Forty years ago Tokyo was a place of crunchy anti-American protests]more[/URL]

[Behan]

Some supporters of the landowners who refused to give up their land to build Narita airport were handing out flyers at JR Narita Station a few days ago. At least one of them had a construction-style helmet on like the kind you could see in the pictures of their battles with police.
Perhaps not the farmers themselves, but someboy set off at least one ineffective incendiary device at a government official's house a while back.
They might be the closest thing Japan has to terrorists now.
But I totally agree with the article that Japan's riot police have almost no work to do.