North Korea second happiest country in the world, China's #1

[Demarlandia]

NorthCorea Resist the attacks of New World Order!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Image)

"NO YOU FOOLS, THE OTHER WAY!"

I DONT SPEAK WITH SEMI COLONIAL PEOPLES OF THE GREAT BRITAIN EMPIRE ,FOOLS

[Nationstatelandsville]

Chaoxian.com.cn, reported on Thursday that North Korea's Chosun Central TV recently

released the survey result of a 'Happiness Index (Gross National Happiness) of each nation,' which was

conducted in North Korea. According to the index, the happiest country in the world is China and

North Korea is ranked no. 2. Interestingly, South Korea is ranked No.152 and the U.S. ranks last at No.203.

Chaoxian.com.cn sarcastically commented that "North Korea gladly gave the no. 1 spot to China and North Korea

itself ranked no. 2. North Korea must be the happiest country in the universe." China scored 100 points and was

selected as the country where the happiest people live in and North Korea with 98 points, ranked at no. 2.

The top five rankings include Cuba (no. 3, 93 points), Iran (no.4, 88 points), and Venezuela (no.5, 85 points).

South Korea, with 18 points, was placed at no.152 and the U.S. ranked no. 203 with its score not marked.

Free North Korea Broadcast, a South Korea based broadcast, commented that the North Koreans who are completely brainwashed,

repeatedly proclaim "We are the happiest people in the world. I will trust ‘the General’ and always follow him only."

Some readers said the ranking is wrong as it seems to survey only those people who do not know the world. Therefore, precisely speaking,

the happiness index of North Korea should be not no. 2 but no. 1 in their survey. Some even commented that the those who voted were not

the common people but those who held power and authority in the government of North Korea.


Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/153551/ ... z1O7nX3Opt

Article link: http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/153551 ... photos.htm

Wow, apperantly, North Korea is the second happiest country in the world, with China being the most happy country XD

America comes in last.

Who gave them this survey? Kim Jung Mao?

[Hathradic States]

Commie propaganda. Next they will sing praises about how the great Comrade Mao single handedly stopped the Japanese. Or something like that...

[Norstal]

I DONT SPEAK WITH SEMI COLONIAL PEOPLES OF THE GREAT BRITAIN EMPIRE ,FOOLS

Why do communists have a horrible sense of humor.

[Demarlandia]

I AM NOT A COMUNIST, YOU HAVE THESE VISSION OF ME ,BECAUSE OF HAVE AN WASP SIGHT OF REALITY.I AM FOLOWER OF JUAN PERON AND EVITA PERON, SELASSIE,NASSER, ETC
I AM ARGIE, AN "BAD BOY " FOR THE IMPERIAL VISSION AND YOU AN AUSIE.
WHEN YOUR PEOPLE DECLARES THE INDEPENDENCE OF "YOUR GRATEFULL MAJESTY"WE GONNE SPEAK AN LITTLE MORE.....

[Herrebrugh]

I AM NOT A COMUNIST, YOU HAVE THESE VISSION OF ME ,BECAUSE OF HAVE AN WASP SIGHT OF REALITY.I AM FOLOWER OF JUAN PERON AND EVITA PERON, SELASSIE,NASSER, ETC
I AM ARGIE, AN "BAD BOY " FOR THE IMPERIAL VISSION AND YOU AN AUSIE.
WHEN YOUR PEOPLE DECLARES THE INDEPENDENCE OF "YOUR GRATEFULL MAJESTY"WE GONNE SPEAK AN LITTLE MORE.....

No he isn't a Communist. Otherwise I'd be ing hard right now.

[Demarlandia]

I AM NOT A COMUNIST, YOU HAVE THESE VISSION OF ME ,BECAUSE OF HAVE AN WASP SIGHT OF REALITY.I AM FOLOWER OF JUAN PERON AND EVITA PERON, SELASSIE,NASSER, ETC
I AM ARGIE, AN "BAD BOY " FOR THE IMPERIAL VISSION AND YOU AN AUSIE.
WHEN YOUR PEOPLE DECLARES THE INDEPENDENCE OF "YOUR GRATEFULL MAJESTY"WE GONNE SPEAK AN LITTLE MORE.....

No he isn't a Communist. Otherwise I'd be ing hard right now.

SORRY??? WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU? FUCKIN PARTISAN?

[Zeth Rekia]

Guess what. North Korea is right. They are the second worst country on earth.

[Vedraz]

Guess what. North Korea is right. They are the second worst country on earth.

No it says happiest not worst

Also i like your dog

[Herrebrugh]

No he isn't a Communist. Otherwise I'd be ing hard right now.

SORRY??? WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU? FUCKIN PARTISAN?

Partisan? Why would I be a partisan? I'm a Communist. Now leave me alone.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

I need to demonstrate the blatantly obvious?

I am afraid "it's obvious!" is not an argument (although you often use it, fallaciously, in place of one).

It's a corrupt, government organization, that most nations are members of.

So whole nations can be "members" of the IMF? They must need a lot of office space! Nations are not part of the IMF: it is an international organization staffed and funded by people and groups from many nations. Thank you for, once again, demonstrating that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

And I say again: Who cares who funds it? What is important is what it does and what it does is support Capitalism and neo-colonialism.

You should watch the flamebaiting.

Says the person who curses at me every other post? Get off your high hobby horse before you hurt yourself.

It's available to the masses in the first world, because of the wealth those societies generate through the brutal oppression and exploitation of both other societies and segments of their own, through economies that, through deregulation and, at times, active government support, allow them to do so, and through exploitative trade practices. They trade what they have, for what others need and, because of Western trade policies, can no longer get, and both parties benefit (in the sense that, because of Western Capitalism, if the exploited group does not participate, they die)..

Fixed

What exploitation? This is the most ridiculous argument.

I have already, of course, explained this at length. Subsidized products wreck local economies, the IMF and Worldbank offer loans to bail those countries out on the condition that they deregulate. This, in turn, allows Western corporations to swoop in and turn the population of those countries into sweatshop labor or to strip those countries of their resources and simply let their populations starve.

Wealth, is not a zero sum game.

Strawman.

How in the world is the entire world getting richer? At who's exploitation? How are nearly all nations getting richer?

Is it hard for you to understand? Should I use smaller words? I am not sure where you get this lunacy about "most countries getting richer" but, suppose you are correct. That would only mean that certain groups are getting "richer" and, indeed, the complex of exploitation is growing more efficient and all-pervasive thereby producing both the "net" economic growth that you refer to (but, I cannot help but notice, refuse to source, as usual) and guaranteeing that said growth simply brings wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

If the United States was able to invade, simultaneously, the smallest 106 nations, and confiscate the product of their labor, over an entire year, that could power the US economy for a month.

\



Congratulations, Sibi: You have one an all-expense paid tour of everything wrong with this response. Are you a troll or just a comedian?

1) Give me a source on this.

2) As I have already observed (several times), it is not all about labor: Some regions are turned into havens for sweatshops, others have their resources stripped, waste dumped within their borders, etc. Exploitation takes many forms.

3) Of course the US does not limit itself to exploiting the economies you mention, so the point is moot.

4) The products of those economies are often limited precisely as a result of exploitation (again, as I have already explained). Trade with neo-colonialist nations, for instances, drives businesses under and reduces the "productivity" of the country.

5) ....which allows that country to be turned into a very "productive" slave state by corporate exploitation.

Really? Trade did not start on a massive scale until the late 70s. Prior to the 70s, the US economy was far from being "in shambles." Why don't you actually learn what you're talking about before making a fool of yourself in debates. The US exports $84 billion to China, and imports $367 billion from China. In a $15,069 billion economy. It's significant of course, but it does not mean the economy would be in shambles without it.

What is interesting is that you do not seem to realize how much you are embarrassing yourself.

I will go slowly so you can understand. My comment was that China would be crippled economically IF the US economy were to fall into shambles. As a result of that state of affairs, China is forced to fund the US' debt. That was my point. Which, you know, makes all that stuff you just said completely irrelevant! How do you expect to refute my points if you cannot even keep track of what they are?

As an aside, your point regarding the trade balance is, likewise, infantile. Basically the form of your "argument" is that, because the US was not always dependent on trade with China, that it is not dependent on trade with China now. All this demonstrates is the fact that you lack even basic critical thinking skills. Likewise, of course, you contradict yourself yet again: as you yourself say, economies change over time. Whether or not the US depended on China in the 70s, it certainly does today.

China funds US debt. China is a major US trading partner. Likewise, of course, if trade ceased with China, it would not result in merely the loss of $367 billion (wherever you got that number) but would also drive under numerous US corporations who depend on Chinese trade, sending shockwaves through the entire economy.

The massive global poverty

Wait a second. You just said that virtually every nation is becoming richer! Once again, dear readers, Sibi is caught in a blatant self-contradiction!

is caused by your economic system,

Prove it. You assert and you assert and you assert but, throughout this discussion, I do not think you have backed up a single claim.

corruption, wars etc.

Which are caused by Capitalism.

Regardless, environmental damage continued well after Stalin's death.

....for the reasons I described. My point stands.

I said largest economy, not population.

So what? My point stands: The US consumes and pollutes out of all proportion to its population. This is a testament to the sickness of the system you support.

Did I say that? The waste is inefficient.

And yet Capitalism has produced the most wasteful societies in human history, societies that are even now in the process of destroying the eco-system and consuming scarce resources at an unsustainable rate.

I measure an economy by it's overall size, not waste or energy use.

Same thing. That is my point. Consumption produces a larger economy. Hence, the need for constant economic growth engendered by Capitalism in fact incentivizes waste and environmental destruction (to say nothing of "the tragedy of the commons" and similar problems produced by the Capitalist cult of self-interest).

People save.

Not in America, they don't.

Savings is deferring present consumption for the future. Savings also lower interest rates. That makes long term investment more attractive as interests rates are low, and demand has been pushed back into the future. This creates jobs, and demand, both in the present and the future.

Again, only in an ideal world. Alas, the individuals (and, indeed, small businesses) that save do not have control over how that money is invested by the financial institutions to whom they entrust their savings and that, as I have already observed at length, is where problems arise. Never mind the fact that governments and businesses propagandize against saving and, indeed, incentivize failing to do so.

They exist though.

Keep your eye on the ball, Sibi. The initial point was not whether opposition exists (it may be that opposition exists within any system) but rather whether or not that opposition is persecuted. I will, therefore, take your statement as a concession that such persecution does, indeed, occur.

I wasn't talking about the pledge. I was talking about things in general.

Your comment was in response to a statement that I made about the pledge. Still more proof that you are constitutionally incapable of addressing my points.

Do you understand what I'm typing? Is my grammar the reason you don't or is it your religion?

This is rich, coming from someone who just confessed to a fantastic non sequitur.

Ah... grammar is irrelevant.

Again, this is an English language forum. You chose to participate in discussion on this forum, ergo you owe it to your interlocutors to not inflect your mangled linguistic incontinence upon them.

That's your claim. You claim that I support acts of the west's aggression and exploitation of the third world. Using your very own, corrupt logic, you support mass poverty and genocide.

There is one important difference: I have demonstrated that the system you support produces aggression and exploitation. You have not demonstrated any such thing with respect to socialism. Do better.

No, it was one of the goals.

A goal made in response to the conditions I have outlined. A society does not just decide to be self-sufficient for the hell of it. They do so in response to a need for self-sufficiency. For a Capitalist drone, you sure have a lot of trouble grasping the simple concept that is at the heart of your perverse ideology: actions are motivated.

Ok. But trade was restricted to all items. Not just opium.

....Which is academic because Opium was the main trade item.

I think you misunderstand. If the west just said "well screw it, we're not trading with China then," and went home, China would still have declined. It may have taken longer, but keep in mind that China was wealthier than Europe, prior to the Canton System.

I think you misunderstand. That claim is a counterfactual, because that is not how things actually happened.

The support of the claim comes from the fact, that through trade both parties benefit.

I have already shown this "fact" for the lie that it is.

Reclusive nations have never faired well.

1) China was not reclusive. China engaged in trade. Indeed, China had the West at a disadvantage due to its monopoly on tea. In response to that monopoly, the West began the drug trade and, eventually, attacked China to open its borders by force.

2) The point is, your claim is a counterfactual. You have no way of knowing how things would have turned out if China had not been brutally exploited.

There is nothing to refute. The claim is fiction.

Again, you refuse to address my points. China was indeed beset on all sides. The West treated them as an enemy nation, limiting trade and supporting enemies on China's borders. China's policies grew as a result of this pressure.

Yeah that shit sucks.

And it is the fault of the system you support. Your ideology is killing the world by inches.

What do you propose, we go back several hundred years and live in caves?

Strawman.

What I propose is the destruction of Capitalism and radical environmental reforms, for starters (but that is a topic for another thread).

Every single one of those, was started by you.

"You started it!" You are regressing by the second!

They made their decision and it backfired.

Like I said, a blame the victim mentality. I couldn't come up with a more perfect display of the perversion and sickness of the Capitalist ideology than the one you just gave me. China's trade policy, right or wrong, was not the West's to decide. When China made a policy that they did not like (in an effort to protect itself from exploitation) they attacked and savaged the country.

It is like a woman being offered sex by a man with a fatal STD. She says no and the man rapes her. Would you say her decision "backfired?"

You asked me how I sleep at night because I said drug dealers merely sell a product, after going on a mini tirade about the horrors their product causes.

Again, please show me where I supported the American War on Drugs. Please show me where I mentioned it at all.

1) Wrong. The relationship is mutually beneficial.

Again you resort to droning platitudes. The West destroys China's efforts at self-sufficiency and trade on its own terms and then gives them a choice between death and dependency. They choose dependency and, by your perverse reasoning, they "benefit" by not dying of circumstances created by the West!

2) It's been 150 years.

....And? The question was whether China was justified in trying to control its trade and borders, and whether concerns about Western theft contributed to those concerns. The answer to both is incontestably "yes."



I must say, Sibi, that, as concerns your conduct thus far, I lack appropriate an appropriate description. I shall, therefore, endeavor to borrow one from elsewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

[Sibirsky]

Outer Chaosmosis you continue to edit my points out, and have double standards for debate tactics. This debate is over unless you start debating like an adult.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Outer Chaosmosis you continue to edit my points out,

Line by line refutation is neither necessary nor efficient in such instances as these. I have addressed the substance (such as it is) of your assertions and have substantiated my own points with reasoning and argumentation.

and have double standards for debate tactics.

But, of course, you do not trouble to share what those double standards are, let alone provide concrete examples of them.

This debate is over unless you start debating like an adult.

Translation: "Rather than substantiate my points or address yours, I am going to accuse you of unspecified wrongdoings and slip quietly out the back door in the ensuing confusion."

The truth is, this was never a debate to begin with because you refused to make actual arguments. Nonetheless, this experience was not without its value, as it allowed me to demonstrate the emptiness and pathological character of many Capitalist platitudes. I thank you, at least, for that opportunity.

[Neraan]

Obviously happiness isn't everything.

[ACoMia]

This survey is probably inaccurate. Happiness in itself isn't very easy to 'measure', and is very relative. Judging by the fact that the top countries are not too keen on freedom of speech. Needless to say neither are the bottom countries, such as the US.

And why do people keep on referring to China and North Korea as "Communist countries"? Since when were they communist?

They're totalitarian state capitalist countries, get it right.

[Hallistar]

This survey is probably inaccurate. Happiness in itself isn't very easy to 'measure', and is very relative. Judging by the fact that the top countries are not too keen on freedom of speech. Needless to say neither are the bottom countries, such as the US.

And why do people keep on referring to China and North Korea as "Communist countries"? Since when were they communist?

They're totalitarian state capitalist countries, get it right.

Thats pretty obvious, with also some skewed socialist system put in place there, but hey, they are the ones that declare themselves communist.

[Hallistar]

Outer Chaosmosis you continue to edit my points out,

Line by line refutation is neither necessary nor efficient in such instances as these. I have addressed the substance (such as it is) of your assertions and have substantiated my own points with reasoning and argumentation.

So, you yourself can just claim that you have already proven your view by addressing a few points and taking that as an accepted fact, because in your view that should be convincing enough?

and have double standards for debate tactics.

But, of course, you do not trouble to share what those double standards are, let alone provide concrete examples of them.

What about all those face palms, /rofls, saying that he is not arguing but just asserting, labeling most of it as causation and not correlation by your view of what is obvious and a fact, and mentioning people's education's being fished out of some 'crackerjack' boxes?

This debate is over unless you start debating like an adult.

Translation: "Rather than substantiate my points or address yours, I am going to accuse you of unspecified wrongdoings and slip quietly out the back door in the ensuing confusion."

The truth is, this was never a debate to begin with because you refused to make actual arguments. Nonetheless, this experience was not without its value, as it allowed me to demonstrate the emptiness and pathological character of many Capitalist platitudes. I thank you, at least, for that opportunity.

You wouldn't stop labeling what he said as assertions and not arguements. There was reasoning in it following the same pattern of yours, and you kept mentioning how it was not an accepted arguement. For you then, after labeling it as not even an argument in the first place, at times resorting to also using the "It's obvious" clause in response to his points, you have now somehow exposed the empty and some kind of lying character of many of those who those who support capitalism ?

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Well, well, well. It would appear that Sibi has a pet.

So, you yourself can just claim that you have already proven your view by addressing a few points and taking that as an accepted fact, because in your view that should be convincing enough?

What are you babbling about? I was pointing out that I have substantiated my points and Sibi has not done likewise.

What about all those face palms, /rofls, saying that he is not arguing but just asserting, labeling most of it as causation and not correlation by your view of what is obvious and a fact, and mentioning people's education's being fished out of some 'crackerjack' boxes?

What about them?

You wouldn't stop labeling what he said as assertions and not arguements.

Because they were assertions and not arguments.

There was reasoning in it following the same pattern of yours, and you kept mentioning how it was not an accepted arguement.

Please give me a single example of a substantiated position offered by the poster in question and explain, in detail, how the reasoning employed was comparable to my own.

at times resorting to also using the "It's obvious" clause in response to his points,

Please provide examples demonstrating that I did any such thing.

How interesting that you seem to follow the example of the poster you are defending by not substantiated any of your claims (which, incidentally, are confined to attacks on me personally, rather than actual contributions to the discussion at issue).

[Sibirsky]

I am afraid "it's obvious!" is not an argument (although you often use it, fallaciously, in place of one).

Edited post. After I said it's obvious I gave you a list of examples, which you edited out of your response because you are are not capable of refuting the claim.

So whole nations can be "members" of the IMF? They must need a lot of office space! Nations are not part of the IMF: it is an international organization staffed and funded by people and groups from many nations. Thank you for, once again, demonstrating that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

And I say again: Who cares who funds it? What is important is what it does and what it does is support Capitalism and neo-colonialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ber_states
You see how it says member states? Yes, nations can be members of supranational and international organizations. NATO. UN. EU. The list goes on and on.

Fixed

Your claim of exploitation is ridiculous and has been proven to be so.

I have already, of course, explained this at length. Subsidized products wreck local economies, the IMF and Worldbank offer loans to bail those countries out on the condition that they deregulate. This, in turn, allows Western corporations to swoop in and turn the population of those countries into sweatshop labor or to strip those countries of their resources and simply let their populations starve.

I have already explained how deregulations more often than not helps, how the IMF is not an ideal organization to "help" third world nations and how your claim of exploitation is incorrect.

Strawman.

Actually, that's a fact.

Is it hard for you to understand? Should I use smaller words? I am not sure where you get this lunacy about "most countries getting richer" but, suppose you are correct. That would only mean that certain groups are getting "richer" and, indeed, the complex of exploitation is growing more efficient and all-pervasive thereby producing both the "net" economic growth that you refer to (but, I cannot help but notice, refuse to source, as usual) and guaranteeing that said growth simply brings wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Most of the world is getting richer. The world GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, has increased by 78% over the past 4 decades. Same time frame, growth rates for various regions have been;

Latin America 94%
South America 100%
Asia 117%
Middle East 68%
Africa 27%.

Every regions has grown. That's not lunacy, that's a fact.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Macroeconomics/

Congratulations, Sibi: You have one an all-expense paid tour of everything wrong with this response. Are you a troll or just a comedian?

1) Give me a source on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... P_(nominal)

2) As I have already observed (several times), it is not all about labor: Some regions are turned into havens for sweatshops, others have their resources stripped, waste dumped within their borders, etc. Exploitation takes many forms.

As I have pointed out several times the boarder situation is improving.

3) Of course the US does not limit itself to exploiting the economies you mention, so the point is moot.

No it isn't. I'm pointing out how ridiculous the notions is. The US us simply too large to be supported by exploitation of the third world. We're are productive, well educated, and economically free. That's why we have a huge economy (other than 310 million people that is).

4) The products of those economies are often limited precisely as a result of exploitation (again, as I have already explained). Trade with neo-colonialist nations, for instances, drives businesses under and reduces the "productivity" of the country.

They excel at other things. China is good at cheap toys. Japan is good at robotics. Germany is good at medical equipment and so on. Their productivity has not been reduced, it has increased.

5) ....which allows that country to be turned into a very "productive" slave state by corporate exploitation.

Massive income gains prove they are not a slave state.

What is interesting is that you do not seem to realize how much you are embarrassing yourself.

I will go slowly so you can understand. My comment was that China would be crippled economically IF the US economy were to fall into shambles. As a result of that state of affairs, China is forced to fund the US' debt. That was my point. Which, you know, makes all that stuff you just said completely irrelevant! How do you expect to refute my points if you cannot even keep track of what they are?

No, all you said is that without trade with China the US economy would be in shambles, you did not specify any timelines or anything. That was all you said.

As an aside, your point regarding the trade balance is, likewise, infantile. Basically the form of your "argument" is that, because the US was not always dependent on trade with China, that it is not dependent on trade with China now. All this demonstrates is the fact that you lack even basic critical thinking skills. Likewise, of course, you contradict yourself yet again: as you yourself say, economies change over time. Whether or not the US depended on China in the 70s, it certainly does today.

And I never claimed otherwise.

China funds US debt. China is a major US trading partner. Likewise, of course, if trade ceased with China, it would not result in merely the loss of $367 billion (wherever you got that number) but would also drive under numerous US corporations who depend on Chinese trade, sending shockwaves through the entire economy.

You do realize that we keep data on trade and other things right?

I never claimed that the damage would be contained to $367 billion, or any number.

Wait a second. You just said that virtually every nation is becoming richer! Once again, dear readers, Sibi is caught in a blatant self-contradiction!

To become richer, for a poor person does not mean to become rich. The very poor, must first become less poor. Then middle income. And so on. If someone in the US makes $5000 per year, they are poor. If, the following year they make $10,000 they have become richer. Yet they are not rich. It's relative.

And yes, there is still poverty out there.

Prove it. You assert and you assert and you assert but, throughout this discussion, I do not think you have backed up a single claim.

Lack of the profit motive and competition stagnates growth, reduces efficiency. A central authority is unable to efficiently allocate resources and set prices for tens of millions of products. Most of the world has had significant use of centrally planned systems. It is impossible, for 10 Harvard educated economists to run a factory in Texas, from Washington, more efficiently than the factory's owner in Texas.

Which are caused by Capitalism.

No, they aren't. There are many Marxists and other socialist regimes that have engaged in wars.

....for the reasons I described. My point stands.

They were industrialized by then. That was your point. So it doesn't stand.

So what? My point stands: The US consumes and pollutes out of all proportion to its population. This is a testament to the sickness of the system you support.

You have no point. A population that produces more, will consume more.

And yet Capitalism has produced the most wasteful societies in human history, societies that are even now in the process of destroying the eco-system and consuming scarce resources at an unsustainable rate.

No it isn't. The USSR produces more steel and more cement than the US. Yet produces less finished product from that steel and cement. That's wasteful.

As the supply of resources diminishes, prices go up, lowering use of those resources.

Same thing. That is my point. Consumption produces a larger economy. Hence, the need for constant economic growth engendered by Capitalism in fact incentivizes waste and environmental destruction (to say nothing of "the tragedy of the commons" and similar problems produced by the Capitalist cult of self-interest).

Wow. With proper and enforced property rights, and litigation law, environmental damage is kept relatively low.

"The Tragedy of the Commons" is a problem in socialist societies. Since there is no private property.

Not in America, they don't.

Yes they do. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, CDs, mutual funds, hedge funds and so on. Mutual funds had net assets of $11.8 trillion at the end of 2010.

Again, only in an ideal world. Alas, the individuals (and, indeed, small businesses) that save do not have control over how that money is invested by the financial institutions to whom they entrust their savings and that, as I have already observed at length, is where problems arise. Never mind the fact that governments and businesses propagandize against saving and, indeed, incentivize failing to do so.

That's because politicians have it "a bit backwards" like I said. Further, hedge funds, and banks are normally more efficient at allocating capital than the savers.

There is one important difference: I have demonstrated that the system you support produces aggression and exploitation. You have not demonstrated any such thing with respect to socialism. Do better.

I have provided examples of socialist nations' acts of aggression.

A goal made in response to the conditions I have outlined. A society does not just decide to be self-sufficient for the hell of it. They do so in response to a need for self-sufficiency. For a Capitalist drone, you sure have a lot of trouble grasping the simple concept that is at the heart of your perverse ideology: actions are motivated.

No, it was a goal on it's own.

....Which is academic because Opium was the main trade item.

Even so, trade in other products was also restricted.

I think you misunderstand. That claim is a counterfactual, because that is not how things actually happened.

It was an example of a nation struggling due to lack of trade.

I have already shown this "fact" for the lie that it is.

It's not a lie. It is, indeed a fact.

1) China was not reclusive. China engaged in trade. Indeed, China had the West at a disadvantage due to its monopoly on tea. In response to that monopoly, the West began the drug trade and, eventually, attacked China to open its borders by force.

2) The point is, your claim is a counterfactual. You have no way of knowing how things would have turned out if China had not been brutally exploited.

China became reclusive. And yes, I do. Through trade, nations prosper. Without it, they don't. Look up comparative advantage, for starters.

And it is the fault of the system you support. Your ideology is killing the world by inches.

No ti isn't. The world is prospering because of it.

Strawman.

What I propose is the destruction of Capitalism and radical environmental reforms, for starters (but that is a topic for another thread).

So you are proposing to go back several hundred years.

You asked me how I sleep at night because I said drug dealers merely sell a product, after going on a mini tirade about the horrors their product causes.

Again, please show me where I supported the American War on Drugs. Please show me where I mentioned it at all.

I did not make any claims about the war on drugs. I claimed you went on a mini tirade about the horrors of the product drug dealers sell.

"Trade in everything" is a bit misleading given that all the West was selling were drugs. So you admit to supporting drug dealers. How, pray, do you sleep at night? Drugs are a product that kills people, ruins lives, and created dependency and you see no problem with it.

There it is.

Again you resort to droning platitudes. The West destroys China's efforts at self-sufficiency and trade on its own terms and then gives them a choice between death and dependency. They choose dependency and, by your perverse reasoning, they "benefit" by not dying of circumstances created by the West!

Those circumstances were not created by the west.

I must say, Sibi, that, as concerns your conduct thus far, I lack appropriate an appropriate description. I shall, therefore, endeavor to borrow one from elsewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

And that's a flame.

[Genivaria]

WE ARE HAPPY! LOOK HOW HAPPY WE ARE!

[Hallistar]

Well, well, well. It would appear that Sibi has a pet.

So, you yourself can just claim that you have already proven your view by addressing a few points and taking that as an accepted fact, because in your view that should be convincing enough?

What are you babbling about? I was pointing out that I have substantiated my points and Sibi has not done likewise.

What about all those face palms, /rofls, saying that he is not arguing but just asserting, labeling most of it as causation and not correlation by your view of what is obvious and a fact, and mentioning people's education's being fished out of some 'crackerjack' boxes?

What about them?

You wouldn't stop labeling what he said as assertions and not arguements.

Because they were assertions and not arguments.

There was reasoning in it following the same pattern of yours, and you kept mentioning how it was not an accepted arguement.

Please give me a single example of a substantiated position offered by the poster in question and explain, in detail, how the reasoning employed was comparable to my own.

at times resorting to also using the "It's obvious" clause in response to his points,

Please provide examples demonstrating that I did any such thing.

How interesting that you seem to follow the example of the poster you are defending by not substantiated any of your claims (which, incidentally, are confined to attacks on me personally, rather than actual contributions to the discussion at issue).

I'm not his pet, sorry you have to think of it that way, I just find you very aggravating and frustrating, even from the first time I discussed with you concerning the topic of socialism and capitalism. By examples, here's what I meant, all of them being your quotes:

The question was whether China was justified in trying to control its trade and borders, and whether concerns about Western theft contributed to those concerns. The answer to both is incontestably "yes."

The West treated them as an enemy nation, limiting trade and supporting enemies on China's borders. China's policies grew as a result of this pressure.

I have already shown this "fact" for the lie that it is.

Again, this is an English language forum. You chose to participate in discussion on this forum, ergo you owe it to your interlocutors to not inflect your mangled linguistic incontinence upon them.

Your comment was in response to a statement that I made about the pledge. Still more proof that you are constitutionally incapable of addressing my points.

Not in America, they don't.

Prove it. You assert and you assert and you assert but, throughout this discussion, I do not think you have backed up a single claim.

China funds US debt. China is a major US trading partner. Likewise, of course, if trade ceased with China, it would not result in merely the loss of $367 billion (wherever you got that number) but would also drive under numerous US corporations who depend on Chinese trade, sending shockwaves through the entire economy.

I have already, of course, explained this at length. Subsidized products wreck local economies, the IMF and Worldbank offer loans to bail those countries out on the condition that they deregulate. This, in turn, allows Western corporations to swoop in and turn the population of those countries into sweatshop labor or to strip those countries of their resources and simply let their populations starve.

Again, who cares who owns it? The organization furthers the cause of global capitalism and neo-colonialism.

Massive global poverty, environmental destruction, and inequality all speak to the contrary.

Anyway, the system I am defending does not engage in acts of aggression but, rather, in reactions to the aggression of others (which I have demonstrated with extensive historical examples).

But it didn't collapse on its own. It was attacked and victimized by the West in a series of bloody wars.


Keep posting, Sibi. Your absurdity shows the absurdity of your cause easily as well as my own criticisms.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

I'm not his pet,

Whatever you say.

I just find you very aggravating and frustrating.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. Your ranting against me is thread hijacking and nothing more.

By examples, here's what I meant, all of them being your quotes:

All that list shows is that you have the reading comprehension of a star-nosed mole. Please note that none of the quotes you list are Sibiesq statements of "it is just true!" but, rather, refer to arguments made either elsewhere in the thread or in quoted sources mentioned in the course of the thread. Using that sort of argumentative shorthand is not the same as passing unsubstantiated points off as truth.

Now why don't you run along and find a chew toy or something so that this thread can get back on track. Sibi's assertions, however unsubstantiated and flawed, were at least broadly topical.

[Samuraikoku]

I maintain what I said: If the governments of North Korea and China tell the people they're happy... then they are happy.

[Hallistar]

I'm not his pet,

Whatever you say.

I just find you very aggravating and frustrating.

Sounds like a personal problem to me. Your ranting against me is thread hijacking and nothing more.

By examples, here's what I meant, all of them being your quotes:

All that list shows is that you have the reading comprehension of a star-nosed mole. Please note that none of the quotes you list are Sibiesq statements of "it is just true!" but, rather, refer to arguments made either elsewhere in the thread or in quoted sources mentioned in the course of the thread. Using that sort of argumentative shorthand is not the same as passing unsubstantiated points off as truth.

Now why don't you run along and find a chew toy or something so that this thread can get back on track. Sibi's assertions, however unsubstantiated and flawed, were at least broadly topical.

Whatever, I'm putting you on my ignore list because when I did talk to you about the thread, you wouldn't stop telling me that I was asserting and not argumenting, even when it is clearly debating/arguing, also with your reference to my education and whatnot, and Its annoying how it is used to sidestep points that people bring up. Have fun with Sibi or whatever, when hes fed up of you as well you can think of that as a proper victory instead of people just being annoyed of you if itll make you feel better. Edit: Funny telegram you sure sent asking me what kind of tricks could I play as a pet asking if I could roll over and fetch and such. How pathetic. You sure seem to be upset that I supported Sibirsky. Atleast I also have the option to ignore telegrams as well. Now go back to trying to refute Sibirsky's claims.

[The Matriarchians]

This isn't a surprise. It has been scientifically proven by the best researchers in Pyongyang that imperialism causes suicidal tendencies, so while South Korea is a Puppet Government of the Imperialist US regime, the US must be even more unhappy, as everyone and everything American is imperialist.

One day the light of eternal Leader Kim Il-Sung shall shine over the entire peninsula.

and Yes, Kim Il-sung was a great man and Imperialism causes depression but China and Israel are only two countries the United States bows to not the other way.

Also, North Koreans are happy because of Kim Jong-il's Propaganda and South Koreans are not happy because they live in imperialist bureaucracy that doesn't force people to be happy which forces them to NOT be happy.

Yah, doesn't make sense either.