Peace through strength

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is the following a good philosophy by which to dictate a country's foriegn affairs?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I gather that you are another one of those liberal whackjobs who like to pummel Walmart unmercifully. How dare Walmart employ 1.3 million people.

1.3 million people who's former employers gave them halfway decent wages and basic health care, all before the Wal-Mart rolled into town and put these retailers out of business.

Judging Wal-Marts effect on the economy is difficult. Sure, they employ lots of people, but under the course of their expansion, they have also destroyed more jobs than any other company in US history. Sure, they provide cheap goods, but they are also a major part of the recent employer trend geared towards lower wages, meaning people can't afford as much in the first place. Sure, the $4 drug thing is nice. It's just too bad that even full time Wal-Mart employees don't even get basic health care.

I am not necissarily condemning Wal-Mart. But I highly doubt that their impact on the country is a positive one.

Your notion that oil companies WANTED the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq is one of the goofiest ideas I've heard in a long time. First of all, why would they even care about Afghanistan? There's no oil there or anything else for that matter except for poppys. As for Iraq, any conceivable gain by the oil companies there (and they would be long term at best given the chaos there) is countered by the potential threats to their business elsewhere in the Middle-East as a result of this. Now they have the constant threat that their assets and personnel there can be attacked by terrorists. They have to worry whether Iran will get pissed off and close the straits of Hormuz to tankers. The chances are also now increased that friendly governments will be overthrown by fundamentalist as happened in Iran which would result in having their businesses nationalized there.

The oil companies wanted us to invade Afganistan? I don't recall claiming that. Iraq on the other hand is a funny case...

Here we have a president involved in Arbusto oil (not to mention a family swimming in Saudi Oil Money), a vice president who was former chief of Halliburton, and a Secretary of State who just before the 2000 elections was chief executive of Chevron. The Bush administration made it to the White House with oil money (both their own, and corporate donations). Following the invasion of Afganistan, while the US public is still paranoid about terrorists comming to blow up the Western world, we oh so conveniently recieve "intelligence" of certain stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction" in one of the top five most oil rich nations on earth (who also just happens to be politically instable and particularly unfriendly to US buyers/investors).

Before even verifying the existance of these supposed weapons (and neglecting the fact that if they did have weapons, it would be because the US willingly gave them the technology in the early 80's), US forces are storming into this oil country's borders, bombing at will. Following the uninstigated invasion, the world gradually starts figuring out that there are no more WMDs (I say "no more" because there were WMD's in Iraq once, and they were used to kill millions of Kurds... only we didn't care then). After we can hide behind the WMD scam no longer, our president reveals that all along his intent was to "free the Iraqi people". A noble cause, only slightly marred by the fact that Iraq under Saddam Hussain did not even grace the UN's top 20 list of most oppressive regimes (although it was conveniently the only nation in the top 30 that housed a signifigant percentage of the worlds petroleum... besides Saudi Arabia, who somehow did not seem as big a security issue, giving that they provide US companies with the cheapest oil on the market).


What am I implying here? The invasion of Iraq posed a lot of convenient coincidences for the oil AND the defense industry's- the two biggest contributers to Bush's campaign, and Republicans in general. I'm not saying that the entire war was necessarily fought on these grounds. However, not even considering the possibility is giving our administration a lot of benefit of the doubt... far more benefit of the doubt that they have earned.

Hey, different strokes for different folks. I personally don't know many people who can get by with such restricted mileage, but that may be because I live in Houston, TX. , a rather spread out city where long commutes are the norm. Perhaps people who live in inner or near city areas can get away with this.

But regardless of whether you would buy one, electric cars had signifigant consumer demand, and COULD have had a major positive effect of the world if they had been allowed to flourish.

Of course not. I just happen to believe that destroying the economic underpinnings of the free market system is not the way to go about solving the problem. The free market system you seem to be upset about is what is helping to raise the standard of living in many emerging market countries. Look at South Korea for example. When I was a kid, South Korea was not a whole lot better off than many African nations are now. They are now a successful, technologically savvy nation who is quickly ascending to first world status assuming that they aren't already there.

Actually, the example of South Korea is what I would have used to further prove my point.

Post-Korean War, the United States government pumped BILLIONS of dollars into the struggling economies of South Korea and Tiawan; in part to rebuild what had been damaged in the war, but also in an attempt to strengthen the two lonely capitalist havens in the the East Asian sea of red. Since then, SK and Tiawan have risen to a powerful economic status, and serve as popular arguments for capitalists such as yourself arguing in favor or de-regulation. What is often ignored, however, is the extensive government wealth distribution that allowed these nations to prosper in the first place. Without US aid, the South Korean economy would never have left the ground.

So sure, free trade is a great way to lift people out of poverty- assuming there is something to trade. Let's say every government in Africa pulled out of all economic matters. Will the nations prosper? Can capitalism work without any capital? What are the Africans going to trade with the global market? Death? Despair? STDs?

You have chosen South Korea as your poster-child. Well, meet mine: Kenya. What has a decade of capitalism done for the Kenyans? Well, they have a decent share of rich, manipulative, oppressive corporate elitists. Beyond that, Kenya remains one of the poorest nations on earth. Why is this, I wonder?



Indeed, an impressive showcase of resources ready to be plundered! Eat up, Kenyan entrepreneurs!



Letting Globalization run it's course completely unimpeded will not bring about positive results. When foreign investors are allowed to freely pick where their money is headed, naturally only the most economically ept developing countries are going to reap the benefits (those currently being India and China). Globalization should by all means be encouraged, however, the world community must do more to help particularly struggling nations attract investment. Governments should play a nominal role in deciding where and how investment will be made. Most importantly, vast wealth redistribution must occur, just as it did in the case of South Korea and Tiawan.

It is utterly inexcusable to allow 1.25 TRILLION dollars of the world's resources remain in the hands of the current 400 richest Americans. Bill Gates' net worth surpasses that of the annual budget of Russia. Despite all his charity work, if he really wanted to, he could singlehandedly lift an ENTIRE nation out of poverty practically overnight.

I'm all for "stealing" from the rich if it means millions fewer lives will be stolen from the world's impoverished.

There is a point where wealth incentive no longer becomes a contributing factor to innovation. I seriously doubt that many people making over a billion dollars innovate because they want even more money. At a certain point it all comes down to power: innovation is ones means of staying on top.

Even if true, it's still innovation no matter the motive.

The point is, we can place heavy taxes on the rich without necessarily harming innovation.

However, regardless, I would personally consider saving the world's neglected to be of much higher priority than petty technological innovation.

But hey, maybe that's just silly me.

In addition, most mega-millionaires work for mega-companies. Mega-companies which control most of the market only hinder innovation, as they tend to squash competition.

And your solution is what? Arbitrarily limit the size of companies?

That's the idea of our country's anti-trust laws.

It's about time we started enforcing them.

[Cathar1950]

That's the idea of our country's anti-trust laws.

It's about time we started enforcing them.

It is long over due.
As for the wars I really think they thought they were going in there as liberators and make a lot of money plus we spent money on arms.
Other then that it is the short sighted inflated egos that are power mad and don't think the can possibly be wrong.
Also there are those that think God is on out side and any crisis is the middle east will speed the return of Jesus.

[Metatron]

I gather that you are another one of those liberal whackjobs who like to pummel Walmart unmercifully. How dare Walmart employ 1.3 million people.

1.3 million people who's former employers gave them halfway decent wages and basic health care, all before the Wal-Mart rolled into town and put these retailers out of business.

Sorry, your going to have to back this assertion up with some facts. Many of the businesses that Walmart (and other big box stores like Home Depot, Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, etc.) drove out of business were mom and pop small businesses that are not known for paying high wages and rarely can afford to pay benefits at all. Even somewhat larger small businesses have to turn to companies like Administaff in order to afford benefits for employees. The small, strip center retail stores can rarely afford this.

Judging Wal-Marts effect on the economy is difficult. Sure, they employ lots of people, but under the course of their expansion, they have also destroyed more jobs than any other company in US history. Sure, they provide cheap goods, but they are also a major part of the recent employer trend geared towards lower wages, meaning people can't afford as much in the first place. Sure, the $4 drug thing is nice. It's just too bad that even full time Wal-Mart employees don't even get basic health care.

I am not necissarily condemning Wal-Mart. But I highly doubt that their impact on the country is a positive one.

Hmm... let's look at a few items gleaned from a recent editorial by George Will on this very subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01573.html

The median household income of Wal-Mart shoppers is under $40,000. Wal-Mart, the most prodigious job-creator in the history of the private sector in this galaxy, has almost as many employees (1.3 million) as the U.S. military has uniformed personnel. A McKinsey company study concluded that Wal-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the nation's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s, which probably made Wal-Mart about as important as the Federal Reserve in holding down inflation. By lowering consumer prices, Wal-Mart costs about 50 retail jobs among competitors for every 100 jobs Wal-Mart creates . Wal-Mart and its effects save shoppers more than $200 billion a year, dwarfing such government programs as food stamps ($28.6 billion) and the earned-income tax credit ($34.6 billion).

Judging from the stats above, I'd say Walmart has a pretty strong, positive impact on our economy and especially on poor and lower middle class people.

You have to understand that we are talking about retail businesses here. They are low margin businesses that use large numbers of relatively low skilled, low wage personnel, many of whom work part-time. Walmart or no Walmart, most retail jobs are not going to pay more than a few dollars at most over minimum wage. That's just the nature of the business. Walmart gets bashed for this because they are the big kahuna of retail but your not likely to find wages and benefits much different anywhere else in retail. When I was college age I worked several different retail jobs both which payed very close to minimum wage and neither of which had any benefits whatsoever. That was par for the course back then and I doubt it's improved for the better since.

Here we have a president involved in Arbusto oil

so what?

(not to mention a family swimming in Saudi Oil Money)

You mentioned this before and couldn't back it up. Have any evidence for this that doesn't come from half-baked anti-Bush website?

a Secretary of State who just before the 2000 elections was chief executive of Chevron

Ehhh??? Condi Rice was Provost of Stanford before the 2000 election. She was an outside member of the Board of Directors of Chevron (along with a half a dozen other companies and foundations) but held no day to day function at Chevron much less chief executive (CEO).

Following the invasion of Afganistan, while the US public is still paranoid about terrorists comming to blow up the Western world, we oh so conveniently recieve "intelligence" of certain stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction" in one of the top five most oil rich nations on earth (who also just happens to be politically instable and particularly unfriendly to US buyers/investors).

Less conveniently, the British, Israeli, and even the French intelligence services also thought Iraq had WMD (which given their previous use against both the Kurds and in the Iran/Iraq War was hardly astonishing). Indeed, most of Saddam Hussein's own generals thought that Iraq had WMD and were shocked that chemical munitions were not released to the front just before the invasion.

Before even verifying the existance of these supposed weapons (and neglecting the fact that if they did have weapons, it would be because the US willingly gave them the technology in the early 80's), US forces are storming into this oil country's borders, bombing at will.

You conveniently leave off mentioning the 17 UN resolutions that Iraq ignored and the numerous restrictions placed on UN arms control inspectors from the time of the '91 Gulf War up to the present invasion. How exactly were we supposed to verify the existence of WMD when Saddam Hussein was playing this elaborate shell game to apparently try to fool both us and Iran in to thinking he had them.

Following the uninstigated invasion, the world gradually starts figuring out that there are no more WMDs (I say "no more" because there were WMD's in Iraq once, and they were used to kill millions of Kurds... only we didn't care then). After we can hide behind the WMD scam no longer, our president reveals that all along his intent was to "free the Iraqi people". A noble cause, only slightly marred by the fact that Iraq under Saddam Hussain did not even grace the UN's top 20 list of most oppressive regimes (although it was conveniently the only nation in the top 30 that housed a signifigant percentage of the worlds petroleum... besides Saudi Arabia, who somehow did not seem as big a security issue, giving that they provide US companies with the cheapest oil on the market).

Wow, if genocide against one's own people and systemic, every day torture of one's political opponents does not get a country on a top 20 list of oppressive regimes, I'd hate to see what will. Then again, given the astounding levels of corruption and payola that went on in the UN over the UN's Iraq Oil for Food program, I'm disinclined to believe much of anything they have to say about Iraq.

What am I implying here? The invasion of Iraq posed a lot of convenient coincidences for the oil AND the defense industry's- the two biggest contributers to Bush's campaign, and Republicans in general. I'm not saying that the entire war was necessarily fought on these grounds. However, not even considering the possibility is giving our administration a lot of benefit of the doubt... far more benefit of the doubt that they have earned.

1. As stated previously, the defense industry obviously benefits from war so they have plenty of motive for supporting the Iraq war.

2. Also as previously stated, I fail to see why the oil industry would want a war flared up around the Mid-East. I elaborated why I believe this previously so I won't repeat myself here.

3. As for the corruption charge usually leveled at Bush and company related to Iraq, I do give them the benefit of the doubt. I believe that the neo-cons truly ideologically believe in the notion of a domino theory wherein the establishing of a democratic beachhead in Iraq will lead to further modernization and democratization in the Middle-East. The fact that they may be full of crap doesn't mean they're corrupt only foolish.

As I've stated before, I think the Iraq invasion was a costly, misguided deviation from the legitimate efforts to confront Al Qaeda and Islamofascism. Hussein, while a major league scumbag and potentially dangerous, appeared to be largely contained by the combination of economic sanctions and the no-fly zones left over from the "91 Gulf War.

The push into Iraq was poor strategic thinking on the part of the Bush administration and was not necessary. Nonetheless, if the operation had been given adequate resources and a well thought out post-invasion plan, it is possible things might have turned out far better than they have. However, inadequate levels of troops were introduced to hold territory once taken (Fallujah comes to mind) and to secure the border in order to keep foreign fighters from entering the conflict. Other blunders included disbanding the Iraqi army (even if you never actually used them they could have at least kept them on payroll in their barracks rather than wandering around unemployed and possibly armed) and dismissing of the Baathist bureaucracy (most of whom joined the Baathist party simply to get a job rather than ideological loyalty) who kept essential services running in the country. The administration probably should have recognized from the outset that the only thing keeping the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds from each others throats were the strongarm tactics of Saddam Hussein. Given that, the options are either oppressive violence on the scale of Hussein or immediately working toward a federalization plan featuring autonomy for domestic affairs for each group with a common foreign policy and sharing of oil revenue. If there had been adequate boots on the ground and this had been proposed early on before all hell broke loose then it might have been achievable. It will be much harder now and would probably lead to the full dissoluton of Iraq under current circumstances.

Of course not. I just happen to believe that destroying the economic underpinnings of the free market system is not the way to go about solving the problem. The free market system you seem to be upset about is what is helping to raise the standard of living in many emerging market countries. Look at South Korea for example. When I was a kid, South Korea was not a whole lot better off than many African nations are now. They are now a successful, technologically savvy nation who is quickly ascending to first world status assuming that they aren't already there.

Actually, the example of South Korea is what I would have used to further prove my point.

Post-Korean War, the United States government pumped BILLIONS of dollars into the struggling economies of South Korea and Tiawan; in part to rebuild what had been damaged in the war, but also in an attempt to strengthen the two lonely capitalist havens in the the East Asian sea of red. Since then, SK and Tiawan have risen to a powerful economic status, and serve as popular arguments for capitalists such as yourself arguing in favor or de-regulation. What is often ignored, however, is the extensive government wealth distribution that allowed these nations to prosper in the first place. Without US aid, the South Korean economy would never have left the ground.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. I don't recall arguing against US aid. US aid, when administered intelligently, can be a great strategic move for our nation. (The Marshall Plan in Europe and similar assistance to Japan following WWII comes to mind.) What I was talking about was killing the goose that lays the golden egg in capitalist systems by going overboard on government regulation of both corporations and the wealth of individuals.

So sure, free trade is a great way to lift people out of poverty- assuming there is something to trade. Let's say every government in Africa pulled out of all economic matters. Will the nations prosper? Can capitalism work without any capital? What are the Africans going to trade with the global market? Death? Despair? STDs?

Your right, Africa is in a world of hurt. Africa was badly screwed by colonialism which extracted mineral resources while building little in the way of infrastructure. Many African nations are pseudo-countries created by arbitrarily drawn lines on colonial maps with no recognition of tribal differences which has led to endemic civil wars through out the continent. A number of African countries are land-locked (name a productive country outside of Europe that doesn't possess a port) and many have inhospitable environments (the Sahara and Kalahari deserts, tropical rain forests, etc.) Add in the devastation of Aids and frequent famines and a whole lot had to happen for Africa to emerge the way east and south-eastern Asia has.

You have chosen South Korea as your poster-child. Well, meet mine: Kenya. What has a decade of capitalism done for the Kenyans? Well, they have a decent share of rich, manipulative, oppressive corporate elitists. Beyond that, Kenya remains one of the poorest nations on earth. Why is this, I wonder?



Indeed, an impressive showcase of resources ready to be plundered! Eat up, Kenyan entrepreneurs!

I'm not totally sure I understand your point. What does capitalism have to do with Kenya's problems? Near as I can tell the problems are:

1. Kenya was under corrupt one-party rule from it's inception as a nation until 2002, when the first free and fair election in it's history took place. This government was rife with cronyism, government price controls, inefficient state owned companies, etc. Only in recent years have these problems started to be reversed with more de-regulation needed.

2. As recently as 1978, Kenya had the highest fertility rate in the world, averaging an incredible 8 births per woman. The government has since done a commendable job of instituting birth control/family planning services which have dramatically reduced this to slightly under 5 births per woman, but overpopulation has certainly been an issue throughout Kenya's history.

3. Kenya is still primarily an agricultural country whose arable land is only 5% of the total land area of the country. Not a good combination especially paired with the population issues above and the frequency of droughts there.

4. While not as bad as some other sub-Saharan African nations, Kenya suffers from a high incidence of Aids with the obvious disruptions that entails.

5.Despite all of these negatives above, the government has been doing a better job of de-regulating the economy in recent years and, at least in the numbers I can find, the economy seems to be ramping up. GDP growth reached 1.4% in 2003; it was 4.3% in 2004 and 5.8% in 2005.

Letting Globalization run it's course completely unimpeded will not bring about positive results.

What sort of impediments to globalization did you have in mind?

When foreign investors are allowed to freely pick where their money is headed, naturally only the most economically ept developing countries are going to reap the benefits (those currently being India and China).

Of course, investors seek the best return on their money so they're going to invest where the growth is.

Globalization should by all means be encouraged, however, the world community must do more to help particularly struggling nations attract investment. Governments should play a nominal role in deciding where and how investment will be made.

That's pretty much what the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is for.

Most importantly, vast wealth redistribution must occur, just as it did in the case of South Korea and Tiawan.

What are these vast wealth distributions you are talking about?

It is utterly inexcusable to allow 1.25 TRILLION dollars of the world's resources remain in the hands of the current 400 richest Americans. Bill Gates' net worth surpasses that of the annual budget of Russia. Despite all his charity work, if he really wanted to, he could singlehandedly lift an ENTIRE nation out of poverty practically overnight.

It's always fun to read these list of how incredibly wealthy these people are and start making comparisons between how many billions of dollars they have and how much countries have, etc. It's worth noting, however, that most of this wealth is on paper locked up as stock in whatever companies made them wealthy. Take Bill Gates, for example. He is claimed to have $50 billion dollars. However, nearly all of this awesome amount is in Microsoft stock. Imagine for the moment, that Bill Gates decided to become the world's greatest altruist and began to liquidate his stock holdings to turn them into cash in order to, as you say, single-handedly lift an entire nation out of poverty. Stock sales follow the law of supply and demand so when Bill starts unloading stock the supply surges tremendously and the demand, reflected in the price, plummets. As other investors see Bill selling and see the stock price head south rapidly, panic selling sets in. To see the final result, check out a stock chart of JDSU or Broadvision during the popping of the tech bubble. If Bill gets out the door with $5 billion of that money, he's doing good. Meanwhile he's crushed thousands of investors, mutual fund, corporate and government pension plans, etc. Some one like Bill Gates has to sell stock in relatively small chunks well telegraphed to the market. That's why his very large charitable foundation is funded with Microsoft stock. He can transfer stock to his trust without destroying Microsoft stock prices. Likewise, when Warren Buffett passes away, his massive holdings in Berkshire-Hathaway will transfer to the Gates Foundation where it can also be sold very slowly through well telegraphed transactions.

I'm all for "stealing" from the rich if it means millions fewer lives will be stolen from the world's impoverished.

A thief is still a thief whether your knocking off a 7-11 or ripping off Bill Gates. Your still a thug with a gun. The only difference is the number of guns.

[Metatron]

Ran across this item. Concerns a new ceramic "battery" that's being developed by a company called EEStor that might make electric vehicles truly practical.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technol ... /index.htm

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I really don't know why you are attacking me on the Wal-Mart issue. I said that I have no strong opinion either way. And truth be told, I really don't have the time on my hands to be stretching this free market debate into every single industry.

But a few thoughts.

Sorry, your going to have to back this assertion up with some facts. Many of the businesses that Walmart (and other big box stores like Home Depot, Best Buy, Barnes and Noble, etc.) drove out of business were mom and pop small businesses that are not known for paying high wages and rarely can afford to pay benefits at all. Even somewhat larger small businesses have to turn to companies like Administaff in order to afford benefits for employees. The small, strip center retail stores can rarely afford this.

These small mom and pop stores that have supposedly been the only businesses effected by Wal-Marts expansion (no evidence of this, for all your complaining of my lack of supporting facts) may or may not have been able to offer bigger wages and benefits.

But Wal-Mart ($9 billion in profits last year, was it?) certainly can. If they were anything like the superhero economic force for good that you claim they are, you would think that they would.

Wal-Mart may be a positive force in the world as you say (once again, I still have no definite opinion). However, it is undebatable that, however much good they are accomplishing, they could be doing much more.

Wal-Mart is heavily subsidised by US taxpayers.

It's one thing for a 100% privately owned corporation to drive the majority of profits into the brimming pockets of the top shareholders. However, given that Wal-Mart is practically a government institution, don't you think some of their profits should be geared more towards the greater good (i.e., the workers)? Don't you think the most profitable company on earth should be able to afford to grant wages necessary for nominal living standards (to full time employees, at the very least)?

In Georgia (just as an example), 10,000 of the 166,000 uninsured children covered under the Peachcare government health program were children of Wal-Mart employees, more than 10 times the number of any other employer. Don't you think Wal-Mart could do something about this without it effecting the low consumer prices their retail stores boast? Of course- just subtract a portion of the profits raked in by the upper echelon of company executives.

All Wal-Mart talk aside, this is the aspect of a free market that I am particularly concerned about. All the focus is on individual profit, rather than group well-being. Granted, the promise of individual gain is the driving motivation of any successful economy, but I am convinced that a more even balance between the needs of the group and the individual can (and should be) met.

Hmm... let's look at a few items gleaned from a recent editorial by George Will on this very subject.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01573.html


.... By lowering consumer prices, Wal-Mart costs about 50 retail jobs among competitors for every 100 jobs Wal-Mart creates ....

.

This claim may hold up... for a few months, anyway.

A recent study in by Emek Basker sheds some light on this fallacy (http://www.bigcitiesbigboxes.com/mcg_bi ... index.html):

Politicians are happy when big boxes hire a lot of new employees right before opening. That increase in jobs is short-term. Economist Emek Basker of the University of Missouri conducted an exhaustive study of effects on retail jobs of 2,382 Wal-Mart stores in 1,777 counties. He found that while retail employment jumps by 100 jobs in the year Wal-Mart enters a county, the increase does not last. It falls to 50 jobs within five years, while retail employment in neighboring counties falls by approximately 30 jobs, and employment in retail distribution falls by 25 jobs.

I can certainly relate to this study. When I go to my local Wal-Mart, there is never any more than 3 or 4 cashiers, and line waits of less than 5 minutes are extremely rare. When in certain sections, I often have to go to the opposite side of the store just to find an employee to help with a purchase. When this same Wal-Mart opened in my town a few years ago, I never remember this being a problem. Of course, there is no where that I can go to escape the long lines... every related business in the area is long gone.

Economists Thomas Muller and Elizabeth Humstone conducted a similar study in Iowa, noting that jobs in the retail sector would generally decline following the establishment of a Wal-Mart. When you think about it, this falls right in line with Wally Worlds business policy. The secret to successful supply chaining involves more than simply making distribution more efficient. Wal-Mart heavily relies on technology in cost cutting. As more advanced technological components are added to the companys supply chaining process, there becomes a lesser need for human employees. This would certainly explain the significant drop in W-Ms distribution work sector.
There may soon come a day when the entire work force in their distribution centers is comprised of robots. What then? More importantly, what now? We certainly cant count on Wal-Mart to take the best interest of their employees to heart....

(not to mention a family swimming in Saudi Oil Money)

You mentioned this before and couldn't back it up. Have any evidence for this that doesn't come from half-baked anti-Bush website?

Well, you are certainly not going to find this information on pro-Bush websites. Although it seems unlikely that any source will ever satisfy you, give one of these a try:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... +oil+money

But its certainly not just the supposed conspiracy theorists. Tell me that this does not look suspicious...
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/19/news/in ... ion_saudi/

The Saudi government supporting a pro-Isreal president? America (and the Bush family, in particular) has been dealing with the Saudis like this since day one, its no big secret.

Less conveniently, the British, Israeli, and even the French intelligence services also thought Iraq had WMD (which given their previous use against both the Kurds and in the Iran/Iraq War was hardly astonishing). Indeed, most of Saddam Hussein's own generals thought that Iraq had WMD and were shocked that chemical munitions were not released to the front just before the invasion.

Even if Iraq did have weapons, could they have possibly been considered a national security threat, having no official involvement in Al Quada, nor having ever attacked the United States (or Britain, or Isreal, OR France) in the history of humanity?

Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan (among others) actually have weapons of mass destruction (in a sense), and have recently/are currently using them against their own people. So its okay for these nations... but not Iraq?

You conveniently leave off mentioning the 17 UN resolutions that Iraq ignored and the numerous restrictions placed on UN arms control inspectors from the time of the '91 Gulf War up to the present invasion. How exactly were we supposed to verify the existence of WMD when Saddam Hussein was playing this elaborate shell game to apparently try to fool both us and Iran in to thinking he had them.

And you conveniently leave off the fact that they did not exist, have never existed, and never will exist.

Wouldnt it be more logical to verify the existence of these supposed weapons before spending 400 billion dollars to supposedly eradicate them?

If Saddam indeed had these weapons (which, once again, he didnt), then he probably had them a significant amount of time before the US suddenly started caring about them. In all this time, Iraq had yet to fire nukes into Israel. So what was our rush? Take the necessary time to find the weapons, and then start worrying. If Iraq was going to attack anyone, they would have done it well before weapons inspectors started pouring in.

Bushs haste to deploy troops into Baghdad despite a complete lack of evidence implying that Iraq ever presented a threat shows that he probably had something else on his mind when deciding to invade. Evidence exists that there were plans to oust Saddam before the issue of WMDs ever even came up. My guess is that the administration knew all along that there were no such weapons, but needed an excuse to invade- for whatever the true reason was, oil or otherwise.

Wow, if genocide against one's own people and systemic, every day torture of one's political opponents does not get a country on a top 20 list of oppressive regimes, I'd hate to see what will. Then again, given the astounding levels of corruption and payola that went on in the UN over the UN's Iraq Oil for Food program, I'm disinclined to believe much of anything they have to say about Iraq.

In the world of oppressive regimes, Iraq is a light weight.

The top ten most oppressive regimes, compiled not by the UN, but by the independent organizations Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Reporters Without Borders:

1. 1. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan.
2. Kim Jong Il, North Korea.
3. Than Shwe, Burma.
4. Hu Jintao, China.
5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia.
6. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya.
7. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan.
8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan.
9. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe.
10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea.


(http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/10_Most_ ... gimes_List)


Many of these regimes are actually supported by the US (Arabia, and arguably Lybia and Pakistan). So what makes Iraq so bad?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point. I don't recall arguing against US aid. US aid, when administered intelligently, can be a great strategic move for our nation.

I'm not totally sure I understand your point. What does capitalism have to do with Kenya's problems?

The point is, pure capitalism does nothing (else the African nations who have made the switch would be swimming in gold about now). What must predate any successful free market is opportunity- a quality that can often only be administered by the government. Is our government really doing enough to foster this in the worlds disenfranchised citizens, both at home and abroad?

The stage for a free market is best set on an equal playing field. In order to provide for this, regulations on businesses and individual economic freedom may be necessary. However, these initiatives do not undermine the very principles of our economy, as you have asserted. Rather, they comprise it; mixed economies rely on this in order to function as necessary.

In short, no capitalistic society has ever become successful without an equalizing force of socialism thrown in for good measure.

What sort of impediments to globalization did you have in mind?

The market should not be the only force guiding global economic initiatives. This expansion must undergo necessary pre-planning in order to provide for the optimal results for all those involved.

A central global economic authority (UN style) sounds like a good thing to shoot for. As utopian as it sounds, we must find a way to unite the economys of the world, and hopefully drive them towards a more unified global initiative, equally beneficial to all.

Most importantly, vast wealth redistribution must occur, just as it did in the case of South Korea and Tiawan.

What are these vast wealth distributions you are talking about?

The US could afford to invest in more foreign economies, just as we did with South Korea and Tiawan. Unfortunately, our government is currently the least generous contributor among all industrialized nations (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelate ... sandGraphs).

Giving in America is generally left to the citizens, providing questionable results. A more unified national aid enterprise must be undertaken. Besides, I think we can all agree that the US foreign image could use a major makeover.

I'm all for "stealing" from the rich if it means millions fewer lives will be stolen from the world's impoverished.

A thief is still a thief whether your knocking off a 7-11 or ripping off Bill Gates. Your still a thug with a gun. The only difference is the number of guns.

And a child starving to death is still a child starving to death, no matter who we decide to rob.

Yours is a position I would not want to have to defend. On what moral basis is safeguarding a millionaires right to buy a private jet favorable to saving human lives?

All I am proposing is, at most, a heavily graduated income tax rate, with the proceeds hopefully funding a greater government humanitarian initiative. Rest assured, after the evil liberals rob them, I am sure Americas elite will still have plenty of money left over to buy that second (or third) vacation mansion.

Ran across this item. Concerns a new ceramic "battery" that's being developed by a company called EEStor that might make electric vehicles truly practical.

In other news: Patent of newly developed electric technology auctioned off to highest bidding oil conglomerate, expected to hit the market on the fourth of never.


But hey, it's a free market....