raja_indy14

The Tariff Act of 1857 reduced the average tariff rate to about 20%. quote> Tariffs are not a tax, per se. What that means is that they scaled back protectionism which encourages imports of foreign goods. I suppose in some ways it works as a tax cut, it might allow cheaper consumer costs within the US, or it may increase state revenues by encouraging trade (when it comes to tax collection, higher is not necessarily better in terms of total revenues). Either way, it still wasn't state-planned economics that corrected it.quote> Obviously not, since it was a dislocation caused by the transition from a state-managed war economy to a largely private economy. You dont wan to live in a democracy? Most inter war period states werent that bad. You had 3 fascist states, 1 communist state, and a bunch of democracies. Besides that, it was not that they where much different then the states before the war. I suppose you simply wouldnt want to live anywhere in Europe until after the second world war. quote> If they were democracies they were mostly ineffective. Europe in the inter war period lurched from crisis to crisis with little real growth and considerable political instability. No, I would much prefer to have lived in Canada 1919-1939 than almost anywhere on continental Europe. By the time the war started many Europeans were not all that averse to the failure of liberal democracy against fascism (as it looked in 1942), liberal democracy had failed. And no, probably not. I'd rather live somewhere that doesn't engage in periodic massive bloodlettings. Of course, this probably doesn't matter much to you since you don't seem to think human life is all that valuable. Ok, fine, Im being selfish. Can you blame me for not wanting to do slave labor in a sweatshop so some other douche can get rich by sitting on his fat ass watching me work? But at the same time, I dont want Asians doing that slave labor work as well. Because I think that it is just as unfair for them as it would be for us. I dont want others to do things I wouldnt want to do as well. Nobody should do that sort of work. quote> I like to debate with people that are at least somewhat realistic. If we're going to get into the realm of perfect world scenarios there's really no point having a discussion. Yes, it would be nice if there were never any sweatshops, but sweatshop-style labour seems to be the starting point of all industrialization. Do you think European or North American manufacturing jobs in the nineteenth century had the wages and benefits that they have now? Obviously not, and while current developmental states can probably accelerate through that stage of industrialization, I don't know of anyone who has actually come up with a developmental model that successfully skips that stage altogether. No, Europe began the industralization by the invention of the steam engine, which allowed for mass production of all kinds of things that used to be done by hand. As an effect, yes, certain jobs in India got outsourced by the British. Ok, great, but that happened 200 years ago. But now youre calling me a hypocrite because some British dudes outsourced a bunch of jobs to Europe 200 freaking years ago and I dont like outsourcing? I dont know, but I dont see the hypocrisy in that. Im against outsourcing, period. How does that make me a hypocrite? And gee, no wonder I think youre trying to insult me. Last time I checked, being called a hypocrite wasnt a compliment. quote> If you think modern European economic development began with the steam engine you need to go take a course in the political-economic history of Europe from the Late Middle Ages to the Modern Era. In the meantime, there's no point discussing this further. The reason I am calling you a hypocrite, okay, maybe just delusional, is because you think that there can be massive economic development in one part of the world without some sort of negative consequences somewhere else. The world doesn't work like that, rapid economic development in a country as large as China will have an impact on the developed world and not all of it will be positive. I'm trying to get you to keep it in perspective and I'm criticizing your (unfounded) notion that China should just industrialize on it's own isolated from the global labour market. Ugh, well never mind, its pointless discussing this any further. You either dont read my posts well enough or you just dont grasp the idea Im trying to explain.quote> Yes, well maybe we can continue in future after you've studied international political economy more. When the USSR started out there wasnt to much political repression. But okay, that picked up under Stalin. Slave labors? So far Ive never heard anyone saying the sovjets where a bunch of slaves. quote> Yes, and the USSR didn't experience much economic growth when it started out. Slave labour is basically what you'd call the gulag system. Ever read about Magadan or Dalstroy? The Soviets under Stalin used forced-labour to carry out many of their most important development schemes, many of them were political prisoners arrested on trumped up charges. Often there would be no crime at all, but Stalin would say "we need engineers for this project", and several engineers would be arrested and sent to labour camps. Take a course in Soviet history or just read a good book about Stalinist economics. Flawed economic model? Maybe. The main reason they went broke was this arms race between them and the US. They spend untold trillions on maintaining one of the biggest armies in the world, getting the modern weapons and having a huge arsenal of ICBM's. That and youre trying to horde wealth as much as possible while using a much less flexible system that isnt designed for that. Capitalism is the best system if you effectively want as much wealth possible in the shortest time possible. The USSR tried to achieve the same goals as the capitalist west using the wrong system. Combined with political repression etc, yeah your bound to fail. Still, that doesnt mean the system itself is wrong, it was simply misused. If your goal is not to get as much money as soon as possible communism might be better suited. I think that once you have gained a certain level of wealth, you can start focusing on economic stabilty instead of growth. No growth in all sectors. Then start smearing it out over everyone. Drop the focus on material wealth and the idea that success in life is dependent on how much stuff you have. You could almost say that you can focus your shift from making money to a more spiritual enlightenment. As well as an increase in culture and happiness of people in general. Of course, I doubt youd agree with me. Or even get the idea. quote> I obviously get it, you are the one who has been making minimal and less than coherent responses. Well that's nice, come back to me when that's been tried successfully on a national scale. Such a system can't exist in an international system dominated by competing capitalist nation-states. Yes, it would be nice if we could all live culturally fulfilled and happy lives with a modicum of comfort and a reduced sense of materialism, where everyone is more concerned about the collective than about themselves, where liberalism is subsumed beneath the state. But I don't know, would the Soviet Union have developed to its 1970s state of relative prosperity without Stalin? Can an illiberal system be maintained simply by moral and cultural rectitude and be relied upon not to suppress individuals? But this is silly, here I am being a realist and you're coming back at me with all these vague alternate scenarios that are difficult to critique or even discuss meaningfully. I prefer to use real life examples rather than theoretical utopias. There are utopian visions of laissez-faire capitalism too, you know.

Well, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are valid examples. But china.... killed millions of people? Check. Reduced people to a state of slavery? Check. And, oh, look at that, this happened as the country became communist!quote> I obviously meant China since they began market reforms in the 1980s. Hence 'Communist-ruled' rather than simply 'Communist' China. Really, there is no need to convince me that socialist states have a poor track record, as should be clear from my earlier posts. Um... last I checked, people who make more money have to pay more of it in taxes, not less. The poorest among us don't even pay income tax.quote> Yes, this is a rather persistent myth. Just because the US has one of the least progressive tax systems in the developed world, people tend to automatically jump to the conclusion that your taxes fall heaviest on the poor while the wealthy get away with paying next to nothing. I think it's what happens when people read a little packaged factoid the way they want it to read so as to fit into their view of the US as an evil, capitalist empire ruled by piggish Wall St bankers. I'm going to have to question the causation in that correlation. After all, it didn't take state planning for the economy to recover from the previous recession before the "Great Depression" (ended by cutting taxes). Or from this one (also ended by cutting taxes). Or this one (ended by returning to the gold standard, thus curbinig inflation).quote> The first one appears to be caused by the correction of the economy from a state-dominated war time one to a private capital-dominated peace time economy, obviously this is not a typical 'Depression' and was self-correcting. The wikipedia article for the second one states that the effects of that depression did not end until the onset of the Civil War (which is both a significant amount of time and seems to suggest that recovery was not complete until considerable public war spending), also none of the remedies attempted by the government are listed as tax cuts. The third depression may have corrected by itself, but considering that it was both the longest period of contraction in the US economy and that the economy did not recover in 1879, unless you discount the shaky state of the US economy for the remainder of the nineteenth century, it suggests that markets alone are not able to provide swift and full recovery. Yes, eventually markets will probably correct by themselves, but this can be a very long and painful process. Bear in mind that trusting the government is something many Americans (myself included) find themselves largely incapable of. quote> It certainly makes sense, governments have been the cause of more suffering in the last century than all corporations in the history of humanity combined. But I'm not sure that I would actually create a constitution designed to paralyze the various branches of government in order to protect myself from tyranny. I think that you can trust government if it is accountable to the people and there are protections for individual rights.

Ah, see, THE STATE. See, the reason for the economic revival was the second world war. Or to be more exact, the state planned economy that was required to fight the war. After the war, the state kept planning parts of the economy. It kept parts of the market under state control. Think of health care, transportation etc. This is why the economy revived. It was forced. The market itself and the corporate world cannot enforce things. Once they fail, they are doomed unless they are saved by a legitimate government that has the trust of the people. That is what keeps an economy going: trust. The failure of any economy essentially comes down to people loosing their trust in the economy. They loose their trust in the corporations, and thus the corporation shares plummet, and more people loose their trust. Until the shares are worth nothing and the company is about to collapse. But there comes the government, a group of people entrusted by the nation to lead everyone in the right direction. And if they save a corporation, then that must be true and the corporation must have been saved. So people regain their trust and all starts over again. quote> If you read my posts, you will see that I am far from averse to state involvement in a capitalist economy. But government is not always a panacea, it does not always lead the nation in the right direction. Many European states that arose in the chaotic inter war period were not the kinds of states I would like to live under. And no, thats not true. People will work for more then just money. Its a capitalist fallacy to think that money is the only driving force behind people (although generally in our consumer society, money has indeed become the main driving force). But you can create a system where intellectual challenge, power and increased responsibility are perfect ways to successfully encourage people to work as hard as they can. quote> I meant perfect equality. As in, no single member of society is considered above anyone else, no member of society receives special privileges of any sort or recognition of exemplary contribution. So you interpreted it wrong, I meant perfect equality, not necessarily income equality. Yes, some people will work at things, but as a whole far less efficiently. Besides, someone has to do the dirty work in society, how do you force people to do these jobs? So, youre suggesting that instead of searching for a good alternative, we keep on going like we do now, and surely end up working in our own sweatshops? Thanks but no thanks, I prefer to keep most of my wealth level while finding a solution for others to develop as well and that all in a sustainable way. quote> In a world of finite resources there is only so much prosperity that everyone can have. The planet probably cannot sustain a human population 9-12 billion people at the levels of affluence of the western world. Yes, new technologies will probably increase carrying capacity further (as they already have), but it seems unlikely that there will be any breakthrough in the next couple of decades that would enable that level of widespread affluence. Essentially, you are being selfish. That's fairly ironic for a socialist. (Aside from being selfish, your rather vague alternate proposal is fairly delusional). Oh thats lame. Because Im from an area where some people 2 ages ago made decisions that I have nothing to do with, I deserve to burn for it? I didnt call for the massive exploitation of other countries. If it where up to me, I would have searched for other ways. Sure, its easy to say for me, because I didnt live back then. But thats also exactly my point. Thats the past, Europe generally doesnt exploit poor countries like that anymore, and when it does Im against it. And seriously, we are having a interesting and Id like to think, mature discussion on the matter of economics. There is no need to try and personally insult me like that. quote> It isn't lame. I did not suggest that you should burn for anything. I was suggesting that you are being extremely hypocritical to complain that Asians are taking European jobs and then expecting them to somehow create their own prosperity in an isolated economy. I find it funny that you are taking it as a personal insult, it was a statement of fact. I was pointing out your hypocrisy. It also shows a lack of understanding of global political economy. Here's what I was saying in plain language: (1) Europe began industrialization in part because it took manufacturing jobs away from Asian economies (we can call this reverse outsourcing) (2) Isolated economies do not prosper as a general rule, at least without significant domestic costs (3) The expectation that China should achieve prosperity on its own without effecting Europeans is delusional (4) If you believe that Chinese prosperity now should be dependent on not negatively effecting any Europeans, then just keep in mind the negative effects European prosperity has (and continues to have) on the rest of the world. No, I am not trying to make you feel guilty. This is just a statement of fact, European economic prosperity cost many people around the world a lot, and I find it supremely arrogant of you to complain about some lost jobs and blaming it on the economic prosperity of others. Secondly, I was criticizing your unrealistic alternative for Chinese development. And you may call it not a successful industrialization because it doesnt fit your argument, but the point remains that the USSR developed from a backward retarded peasant nation to a industrial super power in 2 decades. Yeah lots of people died, but that doesnt change the fact that it was a quick and highly successful industrialization process. quote> Is the USSR your only example? Okay, here's why I don't think it's a viable development model in the current international system. (1) It required massive political repression and the use of millions of slave labourers. China gets into a lot of trouble today for the condition of its sweatshops, can you imagine the outcry if China enslaved millions of people and worked them to death in the cause of economic development? (2) The USSR was able to dramatically increase prosperity from a very low base. However, the economy of the USSR was fundamentally flawed, suffered from massive inefficiencies, and was reliant on expansive economic growth. Compared to capitalist development, economic development in the USSR was a disaster for the environment. By the 1980s the USSR economy had reached its expansive limits and was unable to intensify productivity, eventually resulting in a political-economic crisis and the collapse of the system. The modern Russian economy is still suffering from the deleterious effects of the flawed Soviet model combined with an extreme capitalist oligarchy. (3) I love your callous disregard for human life. I thought I was supposed to be that big bad capitalist? And please explain why it doesnt make any economic sense? quote> Take more courses in political economy and history, you'll understand. It's difficult to explain why it doesn't make sense when it isn't really a model of development at all, but sounds rather more like wishful thinking. Perhaps if you fleshed it out more I could get back to you on that. Overseas banks arent safe. All these banks work closely together. If one goes down, good chance it will drag another one with it. Or seriously damages another bank. The media of the countries bank would hear of it, tell it to the public, public panics because the crisis has invaded their country as well, and the would start a run on the bank as well. It happened over here. Then of course, there was the fact that certain banks where actively speculating that their competition was failing, only fueling the panic of the stock brokers and the public. In other words, these banks where busy destroying each other because that meant less competition! quote> Well, the Canadian banking system managed to get through the crisis of the American one without a great deal of difficulty. Obviously if the American one had actually failed it would be a different story, but it didn't. A strong state stepped in and prevented that. Anyways, I don't think there's really much more to discuss on the issue, this could go on indefinitely.

It managed to survive because everyone believed in it. So far there have been about 3 major crisis caused by flaws within the system. And everytime the government believed in it and kept pumping money into the economy and into the system to prevent it from collapsing. If they hadnt done it, kept pumping money in it, kept keeping it alive then capitalism would have ceased to exist back in the 30's.quote> The state is necessary to jump start capitalist economies after cyclical depressions, but I don't think massive and sustained infusions of public capital are really required to keep the system going. More like periodic infusions and restructuring/regulation to get the economy back on track. After the 1930s depression, economic recovery was restarted (in the US) by massive government spending on war production, but this level of expenditures did not continue at the same rate after the war and was not necessary to keep the system going. Why cyclical depressions and periodic public infusions of capital are ultimately doomed to failure (more than any other system at least) I cannot fathom. And you can say a lot about Communist Russia, but before the revolution, Russia was a backward peasant country with no notable industry at all. In a few decades after the revolution, Russia was suddenly an industrial and political giant and its citizens sure ended up richer and better fed then before the revolution. It is doubtful if they would have done that without communism. quote> Yes, that is certainly true. On the other hand, similar success stories have been witnessed in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, even Communist-ruled China might be included. All of these countries experienced extremely rapid economic growth using capitalist principles, and managed to do it without killing off millions upon millions of their own people and reducing millions more to a state of slavery. Overall, I would take rapid capitalist development over rapid 'socialist' development, they're both fairly painful but at least capitalism has shown you can achieve phenomenal success without killing off millions of people. Communism was less effective, but does that mean its a totally worthless system?quote> As I said, in future computer modelling might be able to manage a centrally planned economy with greater efficiency and equality than a capitalist free market. But there can never be a long lasting system predicated on perfect equality. Firstly, human beings are not equal in abilities or ambition. Trying to force people into constraints of equality is likely doomed to failure, people are too different and varied for that. Economic equality is not everything, it has always amused me how much Socialists tend to fixate on income equality. If you try to enforce economic equality you have to use power inequalities, if everyone will be forced into economic equality regardless, what incentive is there to work hard? Perfect equality cannot work because it means there cannot be incentives to excel. Its starts with manufacturing jobs, but its rather naive to think that only manufacturing jobs are the ones that are going to be outsourced. Those countries are developing rapidly, and pretty soon, it will be cheaper to outsource the services as well to those areas. And maybe not entire companies, but just a whole bunch of company divisions. I mean, why pay for expensive American accountants if there are a bunch of equally good Chinese people who will do the same for half the price? Its inevitable that at some point, entire companies just move pretty much everything to those countries because everything is cheaper there. quote> Japan has been developed for about half a century now, why hasn't there been mass flight of American service jobs to that country? People were just as worried about losing manufacturing jobs to Japan in the 1980s as they are about losing them to China today. Service jobs are generally less mobile than manufacturing jobs. For instance, many services still require face to face contact with the customer (although this is admittedly becoming less important today). Higher end service jobs require considerable investment in education and there are real quality differences. A pair of hands to work a machine on an assembly line is a requirement almost anyone can fulfill, a mind that has experience and has been educated to perform complex mental tasks is something entirely different. So long as you can keep an edge in educating your population as employable lawyers, architects, media designers, etc etc you should be largely safe from outsourcing. And if you fail at educating your workforce? Well, you really only have yourself to blame then. Also, as other countries develop, their wages tend to inflate, particularly for higher end jobs, making them less competitive. Also, it tends to be a relatively smaller number of people because they needed to be educated. At the beginning, a developing country is a massive reservoir of unskilled labour, with a very small cadre of educated elites. As the number of skilled and university-educated laborers increases, they are normally involved in the nascent domestic service industry (i.e. there is no surplus for outside sources to tap). Additionally, there is the language barrier that becomes much more important in service jobs. A pair of hands working on an assembly line can belong to a person speaking any language, it's practically irrelevant, on the other hand someone that is doing accounting (etc) must be fluent in English if they are going to work for an American company. This tends to be a relatively smaller number. Also many service jobs are government jobs, and they would be loathe to outsource these sorts of jobs. Imagine the outcry if teaching was outsourced to China? Who, Bismark? Hehehehe, he only did it because he hated communists and socialists and thought that if he would do this, he would beat them at their own game. Realpolitik. quote> Yes, he was rather clever. But my point still stands, a capitalist society and implemented by a capitalist. Also, the ones that encouraged it are all largely in Europe and Europe is dominantly socialist (especially when compared to America) in its views. But that changes, because yeah, we want to keep our jobs and that means we must maintain a good economical position compared to other countries, so wages and stuff cant go up to much or we will become to expensive and companies move away en mass to China. And since the crisis left us with huge debts, we will have to cut our budget with approximately 30 billion euros in 4-8 years. So, pensions? much to expensive, away with it. Welfare? also to expensive, major cuts there too. Like I said, everyone MUST participate in the economic process if we want to maintain the current level of wealth. quote> Europe is not Socialist. The European economic model is essentially capitalist, sometimes mercantilist capitalism as in the case of France, with a relatively large role for the state as compared to more liberal democracies such as the United States or Canada. But you can only extract so much wealth from the capitalist economy before it begins to have deleterious effects, and you can only impose so much rigidity into the system before its inflexibility becomes a major drawback. Europe is going through this problem right now. European governments frequently lean towards democratic socialism or Christian democracy, but this doesn't make Europe "socialist" except under the broadest (and meaningless) definitions of the word. Globalization causes problems, it is hardly a panacea for the worlds ills. The western world may have to make some sacrifices *shock horror* and realize that our unsustainable and pampered existences might have to change in the future, particularly if we are going to make room for increasingly prosperous populations in China and India. It may be that unfair global relationships that have favoured the western world for the last five hundred years may be coming to an end, and that we will have to put up with a global situation where we exert less economic power and influence, where some of our people may live in desperate poverty for a change. Obviously it is in our rational interests to prevent this, to reject this, but there is nothing that fundamentally guarantees that we in the west deserve the right to pensions, to massive welfare programs, or to full and high paying employment. As an aside, and I pointed this out earlier, Socialist societies by definition control your working life. There was like one economic expert that predicted the crisis, and everyone else just ignored him or said it wasnt true. As I mentioned above, we need to cut the government budget with about 30 billion euros. We dont know for sure, because some economic experts say we must cut it with 60-70 billion euros while others say that 16 billion euros is enough.quote> Well, Europeans and Americans have been paying for their socialist welfare programs and massive military, respectively, through massive and unsustainable deficit financing. It is hardly a surprise that it would one day come home to roost. People didn't think about it, as they didn't think about oil running out for instance, until it really becomes apparent as a major problem. As a Canadian I can feel slightly smug about this, since we got rid of deficit financing a decade ago (although it is back now ). What I meant to say was that if science wasnt completly funded by corporate money, scientist might already have invented cars or fuel that where more efficient, cleaner, etc etc. But because of their corporate funding, science has become completely dependent on what a bunch of suits somewhere in a sky scraped decide what to continue and what not. And due to the short term thinking of those corporate suits, science does not produce a lot of new things anymore, because its to expensive and the immediate gains are to little. Thats what I meant with that science produces nothing anymore. quote> Firstly, science receives considerable government funding in most developed countries, and even some developing countries. Secondly, if it is the fault of corporations for not researching the things that you feel should be researched, why don't you blame the government for not picking up the slack (and therefore adding to your already unsustainable budget deficit)? Thirdly, scientists have invented more efficient and cleaner cars, you can notice the difference when a vintage car drives by, and these were invented by scientists working for corporations. Fourthly, science was never really about producing things, that's technology. Science is concerned with understanding the natural world. This can be applied to real life problems, hence technology, but it isn't a necessary end goal. Global trade would pretty much cease to exist, unemployment rates go up, starvation at certain areas, social discontent, the rise of extremist movements, its going to be the 1930's all over again.quote> Possibly. Then again, governments in the 1930s had little idea what to do and dealt with the crisis with varying degrees of incompetence. I don't think a repeat of the 1930s Depression is likely, what we will probably see in the next few years is a reversal of the liberalization the has been occurring since the 1980s and a move towards an increasing state role in the economy. Also, yes, why should a Chinese guy get the job? Why cant China develop its own economy and give Chinese people jobs in Chinese companies? Let them compete in the quality of the product instead of the price. Wouldnt that be much better for the consumer? Having choice between 2 products, one is cheaper but technically inferior, the other is more expensive, but the quality lies a lot higher. No excessive profits, and a real choice between products that obviously differ from each other in other things then price. quote> I guess you are an economic nationalist then. Europe did not develop its own industry in isolation from the rest of the world. Europe destroyed foreign economies. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Britain effectively destroyed the Indian manufacturing economy because all of the jobs were outsourced to cheaper, more efficient English factories in cities like Leeds and Manchester, paving the way for the success of the Industrial Revolution. Europe actively exploited other people for domestic economic benefit. How laughable it is for a European to demand that underdeveloped countries pursue their own isolated path to industrialization without threatening the working class of Europe when Europe benefited so greatly from the destruction of non-European economic and trade relationships and the mass exploitation of their resources and labour. I would be laughing at the suggestion if it wasn't so callous and brutal in fact. What ever happened to international solidarity, I though that was a primary tenet of Socialism? I don't think any country has successfully industrialized in isolation. Name me one and I'll give you a cookie. (And one measure of "successful" is that it didn't result in the mass die off of its own populace) As for your suggestion, well, it simply doesn't make economic sense. is a bloated crock of you-know-what and ought to be killed.quote> Yes, the American public healthcare systems is one of the most retarded I've ever come across. More money spent per capita than in Canada (with our universal healthcare coverage) and yet you have poorer health outcomes. If you mean that taxes need to be simpler, I agree wholeheartedly. Also, not just simpler, but lower.quote> I love how Americans always want lower and lower taxes but are unable to constrain public expenditures. They don't seem to understand that massive public debt, particularly as it is increasingly owed abroad, is an untenable system. Sooner or later something is going to give, before you're selling Yellowstone National Park to a Chinese developer to pay off the massive debt. Well, there are so many of them that statistics dictate you could probably find one I may actually sort of like. But generally speaking? Yeah. Federal subsidies shouldn't exist.quote> Once in place, subsidies are extremely difficult to remove politically. They practically require a crisis that necessitates drastic emergency action. Oh please. This idea that things like the New Deal or ARRA are somehow "saving" capitalism is BS. Bailouts go utterly against capitalist principles. They are not a rescue of it, they are an attack on it. And indeed, they only serve to prolong recessions and depressions. If the government hadn't pumped money into the system in the 30s, capitalism would not have failed. It is perfectly capable of recovering on its own without government intervention.quote> Wrong. Governments reacted slowly and pursued largely indifferent policies in the opening years of the depression, greatly prolonging it. Capitalist free markets will not necessarily recover from a crash, at least, not in a politically feasible time frame. The New Deal didn't save capitalism, but recovery would have been far more painful without it. Without the massive public expenditure of the war, economic recovery would have been much slower and we would not have been talking about the booming 50s. Capitalism probably would not have failed, but it would have undergone a severe crisis. Luckily the Fascists held the Soviet Union at bay and destroyed their infrastructure, not to mention sparked massive US government military spending that jump started a stagnant economy (that was, admittedly, already starting to make a slow recovery). If Germany had fallen to the Communists in the 1920s/30s, then capitalism in Europe may very well have failed. This is contrary to the belief of free market prophets, who claim that only the healthy banks would survive.quote> A run on a bank is usually precipitated by either real concerns with the solvency of a particular bank or by a systemic crisis of the banking sector that causes people to lose trust in many banks. The latter is normally symptomatic of a larger economic crisis, by which point many firms will probably fail regardless of their health before the crisis (unless propped up by governments, of course). So, after a few months, when the dust has settled, what do we see? Well, no banks, they have all fallen over. And what would that trigger?quote> Well, normally some banks survive. Also, there are foreign banks. This is probably not a viable solution in the case of an (unlikely) total collapse of the American financial sector, but in smaller economies there are foreign sources of credit from overseas banks or things like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Nobody can pay of their loans suddenly because each and every single loan suddenly has to be paid instantly. Nobody can afford that. So everyone goes bankrupt. The entire world economy goes bankrupt. Besides that, nobody can do anything anymore because they cant loan any new money because the banks dont exist anymore. Also, nobody has their savings anymore because the banks are gone, along with all the money they used to have. So, total economic collapse on a global scale. Suddenly we are all just as poor as the poorest guy in Africa. Social discontent spreads due to the huge failure of the government in preventing this, as well as the huge economic failure because the market didnt prevent this. Of course the market didnt prevent this, this is after all the true essence of the free market. So, strong individuals arise, America turns into a theocracy because fundamental christians grab power, in Europe the fascists take over and a decade later World War 3 ravages across the world, killing 3 billion people. quote> Oh please, that is far too exciting. Sounds like you've been reading a B-grade apocalyptic novel... If you answer every question on the test right, you earn a 100. If you work hard in life and play your cards right, and sign a deal for a million dollars at a great job. Congrats, you earned it. You don't deserve to lose what you work for your whole life because someone else didn't work as hard as you, didn't get the opportunity you got, or works harder than you. Imagine if a teacher gave everybody a 75 on the test, regardless of how many questions they got right. Would you ever study? Would you ever bother to learn the material? quote> I agree with the general sentiment, but the analogy doesn't really work. Every pupil is given the opportunity to take the test, whereas not everyone is given the opportunity to be considered for jobs paying million dollar plus salaries. It would be more like if the teacher only gave the test to the five smartest kids in the class and then selected the top grade from those five for a scholarship.

Bonuses are non essential. Its what the corporate top has convinced so many people, but its not true.quote> I actually wasn't referring specifically to bonuses for CEOs, I meant bonuses existing throughout the system. For instance, I have a friend in retail and they get a regular wage plus a bonus (not a commission) based on sales. This encourages better work on their part. Bonuses and awards are used consistently throughout society to encourage excellence and achievement. I'm not saying that in the case of CEO bonuses these are reasonable or effective, but that (a) excessive CEO bonuses are not an inherent element of capitalism, and (b) as with most things they are open to abuse (as they clearly are being here). Obviously if a bonus isn't tied to performance it ceases to have much effect. Why are we keeping a system that rewards failure, undecency, greed and is in the end, self destructive? quote> Do you mean, why are we keeping capitalism, or why are we keeping the current model of capitalism? If capitalism is so self destructive, how has it managed to survive and prosper for so many years. Also, what other system succeeds as consistently at producing wealth and lifting people out of poverty? I assume that means youre from Australia. I also assume that the government has some special kind of deal with the aboriginals in order to make up for past atrocities. And I assume that if youre not an aboriginal, it means you wont get as much welfare as them. And it might be paid by a largely capitalistic system, any welfare system is by default based on socialistic ideas. Welfare is socialistic. And the amount of welfare provided usually determs how socialistic a government is. quote> The "CAD$" should have suggested Canadian, but it's basically the same thing. And no, you generally can't get the same levels of welfare as them, but as I am technically a visible minority I do get a boost, particularly if I want to get a government job, it's almost as good as speaking French. But hey, at least we're starting to pay for our past actions, I wonder how far Holland has gone to reimbursing the people of Indonesia for four centuries of economic exploitation? (Before you go criticizing Canada for our atrocities) Either way, Canada is a capitalist country, not a socialist one. And a consumer society is the logical result from a society who has based its economy on capitalism. Capitalism would have never worked if there wasnt for consumerism. Everything would go bankrupt if people suddenly didnt care anymore for their cars, their tv's and holidays to whatever place. The entire economy is based on the luxury needs of people. However, to increase profits, companies are stimulating this. And they are decreasing the lifetime of the products. How else can they continue to make more profit if people dont buy more stuff. So eventually at some theoretical point, will basically be buying a new car every week, and a new mp3-player everyday. Of course, such a thing is unsustainable, because of the lack of resources. So, company profits will fall, and they are going to lay off more company divisions. Profits increase for the next fiscal quarters, but after that drop again, so more cutting will be required. What the corporate hardly realizes is that they are cutting in their own money pool. Who do you think that buys most of the crap that is produced these days? Africans? Chinese? Vietnamese? Hell no, Europeans and Americans do. But yeah, nobody is going to buy anything if they dont got any jobs. Jobs that happened to be outsourced to China and Vietnam. People that where laid off because they needed to make 1.1 billion dollars instead of just 1 billion. See what Im saying? The system is going to destroy itself because its based on a unsustainable short term approach. quote> I'm wondering what your background is in political economy, do you happen to have a degree in it? (I hope not) Yes, capitalism would be much less prosperous if there wasn't a rampant consumer culture, but to be honest it doesn't seem like the current levels of consumption are at all sustainable even in the medium term. Not from a resource perspective, but from a credit one. Western societies, and particularly that of the United States, can only have so much personal and public debt being owed overseas before the system either collapses or there is a large scale takeover of the US economy by foreign interests. Yes, capitalist free markets suffer from cyclical crises, they do fail periodically and luckily we have strong states (in the west anyways) to pick it up when it stumbles. The overproduction of durable goods in the booming 1950s and 60s contributed economic problems in the 1970s when the need for fridges, stoves, and cars went down. It is a dangerous thing to constantly require more and more consumption to keep the economy going, that's why I think there are serious systemic problems with many western, and particularly the US, economies. Do I think that the entire thing will meltdown in the next decade? Probably not, but I suppose it is possible. As for outsourcing, it is only seen as "taking a job" if viewed through the lens of economic nationalism. Globally, the job simply moves somewhere else to someone that is willing to work for less in poorer conditions and with less benefits. But western economies are largely service economies anyways. The US might lose ten manufacturing jobs overseas but create jobs in retail to sell these cheaper, more numerous goods, or perhaps use the profits to hire more management consultants, advertisers, or accountants. People need to stop viewing it as a zero-sum game. If it were a zero-sum game, we'd still be back where we were three hundred years ago. And the outsourcing crisis is hardly as extreme as all that, it's been happening for decades without precipitating a general collapse of the world capitalist system. Anyways, if we want to look at it humanely, what is so bad about a job going from a (relatively) wealthy American who will have some access to welfare in his home country to a Chinese migrant laborer living in absolute poverty who may otherwise have to watch their children starve to death? It is harsh, I'll grant you, but you have to start somewhere. Britain? Europe? Japan and South Korea? They all started off industrialization with horrific working conditions, it was the factories of nineteenth century Britain that convinced people there had to be a better way of organizing things (socialism). However, in a socialist society, the society will provide for you once youre used up. In a capitalistic society, youre screwed. quote> And yet most capitalist societies are ruled by states that encourage and provide old age pensions. In fact, the idea of a pension was invented in a capitalist society, by a capitalist! Im not coal and Ill be damned if the government decides when Im going to work, how long Im going to work, and when Im allowed to stop working.quote> Bravo! You've just described a socialist system. People are going to be treated as simple coal to fuel the fire of the economy.quote> In some socialist societies, this could almost be taken literally. There was no evidence at all that the big recession from the 30's was coming. The day before it happened the President of the US hold a speech to the congress saying everything was running smoothly and they had no reason assume that would change.quote> To be fair to them, knowledge of economies and gathering and making sense of detailed economic data was far more primitive back then compared to today. Also, I wouldn't say speeches to Congress are the most reliable indicators of economic reality, he's hardly going to say "under my presidency the US economy is going to crash and burn" (cue: standing ovation). That said, yes, I do tend to be skeptical of medium to long term economic forecasts, particularly those that are overly optimistic or overly pessimistic. As for clean fuel, back in the 80's we knew oil would dry up some day.quote> Well a few academics forecast it and people were beginning to realize that it was, indeed, finite. On the other hand, oil could be expected to spurt out the Arabian desert for the foreseeable future, and superfluity for the foreseeable future is all humans need to start and continue overconsumption. Even our cavemen ancestors did this, it seems to be an intractable human character defect. It is evidenced by human societies throughout history, it's only when serious shortages loom do people begin to start mitigating consumption, often too late and accompanied by bloodletting of some form or another. Of course, if you're an optimist about human nature you might be surprised that we're still like this, if you're more realistic you'd simply see it as business as usual. Yet it was to expensive to further research on the short term (like I said, we all focus on short term profits, thats why anything that takes more then 5 years to research is not funded). Had they done it, they would have had a cheap plane that would have used fuel much more efficiently, which in turn would have helped them on the long run a lot more then what they saved by scratching the project and focus on conventional fuels. quote> Most humans are shortsighted. Is this a defect peculiar to capitalist societies? I don't know, did the Soviet Union practice sustainable development? Did the pre-capitalist Spaniards let the wholesale destruction of their forests get in the way of producing merino wool? Was the Great Leap Forward so successful at increasing long term economic productivity at minimal cost in human lives and to the environment as to be worthy of emulation? Anyways, the plane wouldn't have been cheap, you pay a premium for fuel efficiency. Europe is more energy efficient because it was forced to be. If the same constraints had existed in North America we likely would have been forced to adopt similar measures earlier, but there have to be incentives. In the absence of an inflamed public crying about global warming or high oil prices, the government is hardly going to take the steps necessary to induce firms to research energy efficient technologies. Without government intervention, firms will hardly start producing things that consumers don't seem to want. As for the fairy tale that all is better if stuff is cheaper when you produce it somewhere else. Yes, it is cheaper. But cheaper wont do you anything if you dont got any job to pay for even cheap stuff. Out sourcing makes the rich class richer because they are the ones that actually profit from decreased costs in stuff. But in the mean time, the lower classes loose their jobs and suddenly cant pay for anything but the basic things. And in an economy that mainly works on luxury stuff thats a bad thing....quote> It isn't a fairytale, it's comparative advantage. Complaining about outsourcing is rather silly. Manufacturing jobs have been outsourced from Canada and we don't have the income inequality of the United States, ditto for Europe, Japan, or South Korea. The system as it exists in the United States exacerbates wealth disparities, but you can hardly blame all that on outsourcing. Outsourcing also happens to increase the wealth of the countries where the jobs migrate too. Yes, if we want to be economic nationalists and selfish we might say "why should a Chinese person have a job?", but is there any fundamental reason why a job that can be done more cheaply and efficiently somewhere else must stay in the country? Also, a lower cost of consumer goods actually helps poor people, not rich people (this is fairly basic). If we didn't have Wal-Marts with its cheap, outsourced goods, many poorer people would be much more constrained in their choice of consumer goods. Lower consumer goods help a lot of poorer people make ends meet. Yes, for a few people the cost is acute, but there are tangible benefits to a lot of other people (both within and outside of the country). What I am saying is that the cost-benefit analysis of outsourced labour is not nearly so simple as "we're losing jobs to foreigners", that is just the simplistic explanation that grabs peoples attention and can be used for political ends or to sell newspapers. (Of course, if I lost my manufacturing job because it was outsourced, I would have a different opinion. The difference being that that opinion would be highly emotionally charged.)

On the other hand you still want fairness. Everyone human should be entitled some basic standard of living to the extent that can be managed. This complements and I dare say may be necessary to have a decent capitalist economy, because then all individuals are fully part of the system.quote> Adam Smith addresses this in Theory of Moral Sentiments, that book of his that people tend to forget about. He believed that for the invisible hand to function properly people needed to have developed a system of moral sentiments that prevented highly exploitative behaviour. For him this development was necessary for there to be truly free markets, in the meantime he believed that the state should function to address the lack of moral sentiment. Basically, in the absence of equality arising naturally because actors are compelled to assist their fellow human beings, the state would have to impose moral sentiments to ensure that people were not trampled upon under the boot of a laissez-faire capitalism. Personally, I think that a truly free market would be horrible from a human point of view, and I don't even think it would necessarily be the most prosperous. Capitalism as a system rests on the inviolability of private property, the freedom of people to make economic choices with an aim to accumulating or producing more capital, and the rule of law to protect individuals and their property from the state. I think that allowing largely free markets to allocate resources is the most efficient and productive method, attempting to artificially control this through bureaucratic central planning is unlikely to be successful, although there are examples were some sort of management has been successful. Perhaps in the future highly advanced computer models will be able to plan economies centrally to maximize both public welfare and prosperity.

How will it be bad for the economy if you tax certain excesses away? Take that guy from Goldman Sachs. Hes an arrogant bank manager that is partly the cause of the economic crisis. He is a fraud and he has earned millions with bonuses. So why not put a 99% tax on a bonus that is more then 100.000 dollar? Dont tell me these guys need millions to keep the economy running. Dont tell me that these people single handily keep the economy running with their extreme salaries. quote> That isn't a necessary aspect of a capitalist system. Bonuses can be important as an incentive to work harder and better, however, like most things, they can also be abused. I don't think you will find the same thing in all capitalist economies, at least not to that excessive level. The lower class needs to work two to three jobs to just survive, while their bosses dont do a lot and cash in from the work their wage slaves do for them. The middle class gets a decent salary, but then again, they do have to work their ass off, taking away all their time they should be spending with their kids or doing something for themselves. quote> Firstly, the lower classes do not need to work three jobs to survive, except possibly if they have a lot of kids. There are many people in my, capitalist, society that survive with several kids on welfare payments. If you are aboriginal and have a few dependent children you can get upwards of CAD$50 000/year in welfare payments. These people do not otherwise work. What pays for this profligacy? A capitalist economy... If the middle class did not have so many superfluous needs, they would not have to work so much. Do they need holidays in the Caribbean every year? Do they need two new cars every second year? Do they need a massive house in suburbia? The drive to work is, in large part, a result of the culture of excessive consumption that pervades the middle classes. In my mind, once someone is working for luxuries and not simply a comfortable existence, you can no longer pull out the "they have to work their asses off and neglect their families" card. Is that how we want to be treated? I know I dont want to be treated like that.quote> Well labour is a resource, what sort of system would you prefer to live in where this isn't the case? Most socialist systems treat labour as a resource as well, de facto if not de jure, because that's what it is. In pre-capitalist slave societies, labour was treated as a resource, in feudal societies it was treated as a resource. The great thing about the modern world is that human labour is not actually required to perform a wide array of functions as it was in the past. Also, please do read and respond to my post above, it addresses your earlier posts in some detail.

I don't know if this has been said or not, but I support phasing out the current U.S. welfare system in favor of a system that more avidly encourages people to find work.quote> Expecting people to find work when jobs are simply not available is not a very effective strategy. Yes, some people are lazy or suffer from mental disabilities that prevent them from getting or keeping a job, but there are also many people that have lost their jobs recently for reasons that are beyond their control. Is it just that these people should be abandoned to the elements when a society possesses the resources to assist them? This is particularly relevant in a society that has largely abandoned traditional, non-state approaches to welfare (such as family and the church), or where these are much less capable of providing the necessary support to the numbers of people that need it. you do realise that free-market economics would actually leave a large section of the population deadquote> Not necessarily. Free market economies are the most productive agricultural societies that humans have ever produced, and this food is available at a price that is a fraction of the average wage. In practically all other models there are occasional, or even frequent, periods of food scarcity and even starvation. Collective farming is highly inefficient and there would have been severe shortages in the Soviet Union if they did not purchase grain from the West. So in many ways, free market economies are the most effective at feeding a larger population cheaply, and this has historically been one of the major impediments to population growth and a major cause of death and disease. free markets don't work since currencies are artificially inflated (US dollar) or deflated (Chinese Yuan/most east Asian currencies except Japanese Yen) quote> And yet the renminbi is kept at an artificially low rate by way of state policy, how is this an example of free markets not working? Its unfair for 95% of the population. 95% of the population has to work their ass off for a sucky wage while in the mean time the remaining 5% does next to nothing but does cash in all the profit. And dont say they deserve it because they have such a responsible position or because they worked hard to get there.quote> This reminds me of the nomenklatura system in the former Soviet Union. At any rate, successful capitalism breeds a strong state, a strong state creates ministries, bureaucracies, public education and healthcare programs, all these things employ massive amounts of public employees and all their wages ultimately come from the proceeds of a capitalist economy. In most advanced capitalist democracies there are all sorts of service jobs that require considerable investment in education and which pay high salaries for a persons intelligence or other marketable skills and attributes. Yes, an unregulated free market that really and truly left everything up to the private sector (i.e. there is no conception of public goods/services) would probably be a horrible society to live in, and there would likely be gross inequality. But capitalist societies as they exist in reality have a variation of wealth inequality, and it isn't necessarily inherent that such a wide disparity must exist as you've painted here, indeed, that level of disparity is rare, particularly in advanced capitalist societies. At any rate, this doesn't seem like a trait that can reasonably be attributed to capitalist societies alone. After a few years of extreme profits, the bubble has finally collapsed with the destruction of the global economy as a consequence. Because this isnt over yet, the bailouts merely bought the mighty captains of industry some more time. But in the next decade, it will collapse entirely and everybody will be poorer then ever.quote> Oh my, how dreadful. I am not someone who believes in the inevitability of progress, but on what are you basing this prediction of global economic collapse? Obviously we are not necessarily through the worst of it, and the view may seem particularly rosy from where I stand, but collapse of the capitalist economic order within a decade seems somewhat extreme, especially when not supported by much (or any) evidence. The Depression of the 1930s was exacerbated because governments did not know how to respond to such a crisis and stuck to supporting the gold standard and maintaining a hands off, liberal approach to the economy. What we now know is that government policy in handling an economic crisis is key, the crisis may not be over but it would likely have been much, much worse if governments reacted as they did in 1929/30. And look at todays society. All thanks to capitalism. We got teens bored out of their mind, half of the people are suffering from mental disorders like depression, stress is at an all time high, we are culturally dead, science produces absolutely nothing of value, and 95% of the population just works for the sake of working, leaving no time for things like family and hobbies. quote> Well, if you want to be pessimistic about it. I suppose back in the good old days before capitalism everyone pranced about blissfully in the fields at one with nature and each other? Please. Yes, there are negative aspects to modern capitalist society, but to say that teens are bored out of our minds (Was I? Should I have been entitled to 24/7 entertainment and interaction? Were teenagers three hundred years ago having so much more fun? Oh wait, they were working...) or that "we are culturally dead" is simply hyperbole. Science produces nothing of value, eh? I'd always thought that modern medical research that is helping to save more and more lives had value, but I guess I was wrong. And no, people don't work for the sake of working, people work to have an income. Working for the sake of work would be an improvement. When I was a kid, eggs cost 12 cents a dozen, bread was about 5 cents a loaf, and my father made $90. a month as a private soldier of which half came to my mother who also worked for about $20 a week just to keep things going. Bread and milk were delivered door to door, and nobody complained about fuel for the delivery vans, which were horse-drawn. Now it is too expensive to run door-to-door services for daily groceries, so each individual has to make his way to the store to get it. I wonder which costs more? Add up all the fuel for each person to go to a selling point, and see. Now eggs are around $3 per dozen and bread is well over $1.50 a loaf. *sigh*quote> Yes, that is sad, we should go back to the good old days of Diocletian's price and wage freezes. I suppose looking back at things through rose tinted glasses allows people to ignore the fact that the economic crises of the 1970s to 1980s were largely a result of state interventions. Inefficiencies and inflexibility were the result of excessive government support, while massive US budget deficits - yes, in part because of the Vietnam War - broke down the Bretton-Woods system and paved the way for the debt crisis and the wave of economic liberalization that swept the world in the 1980s. Governments are often just as much to blame for economic outcomes as corporations are, and they wield vastly more real power and influence. State management of the economy can work for a time in certain situations, but like many things it is not a panacea and the level of state involvement should shift over time in response to changing circumstances. Inflexibility is dangerous. In the 1960s and 70s, state management managed to assist dramatic capitalist reconstruction and growth following the Second World War. Over time, however, this system experienced intractable problems leading to the conservative liberal reaction of the 1980s (which seemed to have swept most of the globe and took the Soviet Empire with it). There were problems, this is not something that can be ignored or wished away. As is usual, the conservative reaction probably took things too far in the opposite direction, and now there is a renewed role for government in the wake of this latest crisis. Institutions change in response to altered situations, static institutions are vulnerable to dissent and overthrow. We could have had cars riding on cleaner, more efficient, cheaper fuels about a decade ago if it wasnt for the big oil companies to stop funding this kind of research because it did not produce results quick enough. quote> Yes, because it wouldn't have sold. In the 1980s Boeing began planning and design of a more fuel efficient commercial aircraft as a response to market demand for fuel efficiency in an environment of high oil prices. When oil prices went down in the early 1990s the project was abandoned because fuel efficiency was no longer a major marketable feature. Since 2001, however, with the crisis of the airline industry and spikes in the cost of aviation fuel, fuel efficiency is once again a marketable feature that is quite clearly seen in the latest Airbus and Boeing offerings. Unfortunately, corporations cannot afford to be altruistic, and without the widespread public outcry that exists now, democratic governments - fairly inertial at the best of times - are unlikely to provide the backing to support such projects. This isn't to say that oil companies do not use tactics to undermine the development of alternatives to an oil economy - although in reality, many have now jumped on the emerging renewable energy bandwagon - but there are pragmatic reasons why corporations do not have altruism-based planning that looks decades into the future... Ive gotta give credit to capitalism for one thing though. They are masters of deceit. They managed to convince everyone that capitalism is better then anything else, while its not. That makes socialism better. Its fairer for everyone, the economy works better under a more socialist system and it makes people happier as well.quote> This takes the cake for ridiculous statements. Capitalism is a system of economic organization, how can "they" be masters of deceit? If you mean that exponents of capitalism have managed to convince everyone that capitalism is better then anything else than you are very much mistaken. Support for socialism or socialist elements remains fairly strong and is far from a marginal fringe in most countries. You are hardly unique in your opposition to capitalism, indeed, it is practically a mainstream view at this point. What definition of "socialism" are you using, and where is the data that supports your claims? The only system that might be called "socialist" that I would consider successful is European socialist democracy. Since this system requires capitalism to function, I have a hard time understanding how you can criticize it (capitalism). people in places like China are willing to work for less than people are here, and it is economically and practically feasible to make things there and ship them here. Obviously this isn't good for us, but we have no one to blame for it but ourselves. quote> Well, it is good for you actually. Living standards are improved because goods can be produced more cheaply than if production was kept domestically. The problem is that the large number of people who benefit, the consumers, individually gain very little, while those who lose their job (a smaller number) are effected more significantly, creating a vocal group that challenges off shore production. In reality, most things have trade offs, and in this case American firms can make more profit and American consumers can pay less; unfortunately a number of American manufacturing jobs will be lost. If all production was domestic, and in fact, the US is a relatively self-sufficient economy already, US consumers would be paying higher prices for all goods which would depress their real standard of living. Trade that is not imposed or coercive is mutually beneficial, or else people would not engage in it. At the national level, some people may lose on both sides, but overall there is a net benefit.

The US doesn't have a "government controlled economy", your taxes on the rich are relatively unprogressive, and your social welfare programs are less developed than comparable countries. You are an advanced capitalist democracy with a relatively limited welfare state. The US is not socialist.

That's actually intentional, the ACE-2 concourse is supposed to be a new addition to the older Haneda-style terminal.

The second one is the older airport from the same city and had the same name, you could just label it with "(Older)" attached to the name Rajapura International Airport. (It may have had a more specific name, but I forget what it was now)

Thanks for the comments! @cities; the airport serves an island city-state in the Orient and is very much modeled on Singapore and Hong Kong, if both those cities can manage with two runways I think it is fair to say this one can. @zahrul; the empty spaces actually do have park pieces, the images have been manipulated to make the night seem darker and enhance the glow of the nightlights, which makes them difficult to distinguish. In the meantime, another old airport from a similar-style city. I'm not terribly proud of the airport layout itself, particularly the terminals, although this was intentional to a certain degree. I do like how the road access turned out, however. ^ Overview of the passenger terminals, the runway extends onto the adjacent map. ^Detail of the landside structures ^ The same scene at night

A few months ago I finished this airport for a city that I subsequently abandoned. I never got around to populating it with planes, but most everything else is completed. I don't think that I've posted this before, and if I have that was almost a year ago now...

This seems to have been largely forgotten by the VANOC people, and the poor showing by their boss at the Olympic Closing Ceremony was worse than no French at all.quote> As far as I'm concerned, the Olympics are awarded to a city, not a country. If they wanted to be representative, it would have made more sense to have Chinese elements than French-Canadian ones. Presenting everything important in both French and English is all that is required to satisfy the official language problem.

The partiular thing that jumps out at me here (and I've seen this before), is the categorization of the USSR as "socialist". It seems to me that people from Europe, or people who lean further left, tend to do so - while people from America, or people who lean further right, would categorize the USSR as "communist", and say "socialist" describes more what exists in much of Europe currently. This is where the contentiousness with these words arises: people on the right call Obama and his policies "socialist" and mean it in the Europe way, but then people on the left hear the word and think USSR, and see those on the right as crazy for thinking that's what it's like. They then get into arguments about whether or not the label is accurate or appropriate as opposed to actually discussing the pros and cons of the policy. I think the problem is that many people are using the terms "Socialist" or "Communist" more in line with their technical definitions, whereas much of the American public seems to define these terms based on the very sloppy usage of half of century of propaganda and socialization, both by the right and the left. Communist becomes equivalent with the Communist party, even though the Communist Party was only, ostensibly, working towards communism, but never actually achieved it; i.e. it was never really a communist entity. States like the Soviet Union are Socialist states that are ruled by a political party that calls itself Communist. In reality the aims of the Communists were simply incompatible with the economic and political realities of the states they were governing, and instead they were forced to build up significant state-military-industrial complexes, and if they hadn't, they would have been eradicated by other states. If one really wanted to attempt a communist experiment, I think Fiji would be a better place to try it than 1917 Russia. I think the US is fairly unique in being a major developed country that still finds socialist concepts largely abhorrent and even terrifying. This can be attributed, in large part, to the propaganda campaign that was waged relentlessly in that country for over half a century that targeted any hint of communism, no matter how benign. But it is also attributable to the greater sense of independence exhibited by Americans and their greater fear of government, and these are factors that have been apparent for centuries. America is exceptional in it's lack of a real labour party, and no doubt this is in large part due to the fear of socialism. As is usual in such circumstances, any system that even exhibits some sympathies towards this abhorred socioeconomic system is given the blanket label of 'socialist'. Europe is not socialist, nor is Canada, but there is a much larger socialist element in these countries, particularly on continental Europe. A similar thing happened in the Cold War, when any government that attempted to nationalize something that was of interest to US Big Business was instantly labelled 'Communist'. When people call Obama socialist, they are either being purposefully hyperbolic or they are ignorant. Calling Obama a socialist is a good way to scare people, or at least some Americans, but it certainly isn't a term that anyone doing meaningful analysis of his policies or aims would use. It is true that everything in the US is shifted more to the right than in most other advanced democracies, so that your Democratic Party would really be a centre-right, or even right-wing, party anywhere else. This does not mean, however, that labeling Obama as a socialist is technically accurate, even in the US. For instance, Canada is not by any definition a socialist country, despite having a universal healthcare system. What is ironic, is that the US federal government actually spends more money per capita on healthcare programs than Canada does, but gets worse health outcomes as determined by general indicators such as infant mortality rate and life expectancy. I would say that clearly some sort of reform is necessary, especially in a period of spiraling public and private debts, but that the very effective system of checks and balances built into the US state is showing it's weakness in enabling significant reforms. Many times I've been told by people from Europe I'm getting "socialism" and "communism" confused. Or that I don't know what "socialism" really means and am misapplying the term as Americans often do. Well, you go through that enough times, and you start to realize... wait a minute, it's not that either of us is wrong or misguided, it's merely that we have different definitions of the word and are thus misreading each other's statements, making them appear foolish when they are not. Unless we're using a technical, academic definition instead of a popular one; in which case the popular American conception is quite inaccurate, while the European one is closer. In casual discussions between Americans that definition might work, but in more technical debate it is good to have a commonly accepted definition of a term, and in this case that definition has already been established. Having said that, the word "socialism" is really quite useless without qualifiers, as it is taken by different people to represent a wide range of socioeconomic systems. Any state that has existed that is led by a Communist Party is in fact a socialist state, not a communist one, however, and this is even evidenced in the, admittedly often otherwise misleading, names that are given to them, such as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. No state that I know of has called itself 'Communist'. At the same time, Canada and Europe countries are not Socialist states, they very much run on free market principles, the protection of private property, and the accumulation of private capital. Socialism is not simply advocating that the state should play a role in redistributing wealth (a little) more equitably, or in providing certain essential goods and services. You might say that these are the policies of democratic capitalism with a social conscience. Europe and Canada might be more socialist than the US, but if we accept that these countries are socialist, then why isn't the US socialist as well? It isn't as if it operates a pure form of capitalism by any stretch of the imagination. For the record, I'm Canadian, and that's probably rather rambling and incoherent, I apologize in advance.

I favour a free market liberal democracy. It's quite difficult to say you "favour" capitalism, because it doesn't mean much. Capitalism can exist with varying degrees of state intervention, and no capitalist system exists with no state intervention. I think that private property should be inviolate, I think that people should be relatively free to accumulate capital, but I also think that the government must play a role in regulation of the free market system, and that it should play a role in alleviating inequality. I definitely do not favour laissez-faire capitalism, because I think that rampant capitalism can be a very ugly thing that must be tempered by a public conscience, by Adam Smith's "moral sentiments".

Capitalism; a system where private property is protected and where individuals pursue the accumulation of capital largely unconstrained by the state. Generally, goods and services are provided by private interests with the objective of accumulating further private capital, not in the interests of 'the public'. A state is required to enforce contracts, protect private property, and manage currency, but in the future these roles may be taken on by some other entity. In all current capitalist systems, the role of the state extends, often considerably, beyond these basics. Socialism; a system where considerable property and capital in the economy is controlled by the state, with the intention of providing more equitable access to public goods and services. Or, where workers control the means of production. It aims to redistribute private capital, and in doing so may violate private property. Public goods, such as natural resources, are controlled by the state for the public good. communism; a system where property is held communally, and each member is entitled to an equitable share. There is no private capital accumulation and no private property, goods and services are exchanged on the concept of reciprocity and/or for the public good, rather than for the accumulation of private capital. Ideally, there is no state, as such, but there will inevitably be local power structures that regulate day to day interactions, such as courts. Communism, in this sense, is practiced by small clusters of humans, but it is obviously impossible for any state to practice communism, or really, for any large groupings of humans to attempt to practice it in a system of capitalist nation-states. Communism; a system that aims to violently overthrow everything you hold dear (the family, the church, your home, democracy, etc) and replace it with slavery and despotism. Practiced by several highly degenerate states, most of which, thankfully, have either failed or reformed.

Coming from someone who lives in a city with a climate very similar to Moscow's (Winnipeg, Canada), I'd likely have mixed feelings about a snow free winter. The idea of not having a white Christmas, something we'd normally be virtually guaranteed, would be a little distressing if I were feeling particularly sentimental, and the idea of not having the fresh snow that you get from October to early December would be quite sad. On the other hand, a winter without the huge inconveniences of snow (the mountains of snow piled everywhere) and especially a spring without the mud and sand drifts left over from salting the roads would be quite nice too. And I can easily see how this would be cheaper than employing the massive system required to clear roads throughout the winter; especially since after about mid-December the snow becomes really intolerable and not even useful in a recreational way.

The old airport for my latest city, Rajapura International Airport (RJI). It features one 3260m runway oriented 27-09. Because of limited runway slots and parking stands, the airport operates widebodied jets exclusively to ease congestion from aircraft movements. There are two terminals, the old Terminal 1 (on the left in the main picture) which deals primarily with flights to other Asian destinations or by major Asian carriers, and a relatively new Terminal 2 (on the right, in the form of a pier), which is the base of European and North American airlines. In recent years the airport has become increasingly congested, and alternative locations are being pursued for a new airport for the economically important Rajapura region. Looking Northwards, the main airport buildings and apron are visible. The runway continues onto the adjoining map: The main entrance and parking spots. Access to the airport is provided by two freeways, one is a direct connection to the downtown (south), the other is a general connection to the island's freeway system (east): The same scene at night:

haha, don't worry, canada isn't in the process of having it's democratic institutions demolished and being converted into a stephen harper dictatorship... (although, admittedly, that's pretty much what the liberal attack propaganda foretold last election...) and the US isn't going to have to invade to restore democracy, and possibly confiscate drilling rights to the alberta tar sands while they're at it

Guangzhou, China

I have no problem with them wanting independence, but they should want it enough to fight for it.quote> hawkpride, that's frankly rediculous. independence movements in recent history have often been taken advantage of by competing powers to further their own aims and goals; russian intervention in Georgia is very similar to NATO - and especially US - intervention in Kosovo. it would be hypocritical to suggest that it's wrong for russia to invade georgia and recognize Abkhazia and S Ossetia as independent, when the US has just recently done almost the exact same thing in Kosovo. independence movements are NOT something that as a rule should be independently won without significant outside help, this has never been the case, and it certainly isn't now. you give the example of the Texan rebellion, and yet ignore your own war of independence, the success of which was to a significant extent dependent on the intervention of france and spain - yorktown was the decisive victory it was because a french fleet won the battle of the capes. and then there are examples of the US actively supporting the crushing of independence movements, most spectacularly in vietnam, where the US ended up financing the french war against the rebellion... anyways, the s ossetians have been fighting for it...

meh, perhaps they didn't have any legal obligation to defend georgia, i just meant that if they had come to the aid of georgia militarily in some way i would have thought it justified. i was addressing patriots point that had the US intervened with military strength i would have decried it as typical US aggression and warmongering... as for whether the georgian invasion was justified, generally sovereign states have often used force to prevent the breakaway of sovereign territory; and i'd say a certain amount of military force is justified to maintain the territorial integrity of a state. anyways, i think it's clear that the russians are more concerned about the encroachement of NATO into the old soviet sphere than about a missile shield in Poland. the interceptor bases are only a small part of general trend that has seen the west extend its influence further and further into eastern europe and central asia, and russia - to some extent rightly - feels threatened. they aren't really concerned that US missile interceptors in Poland will be able to stop them from attacking the US or western europe - should that scenario ever arise - but that it is a further instance of poland being integrated militarily with the west instead of the east. and the russian method of spreading it's influence is by bullying it's neighbours - which, paradoxically, actually makes it harder for them in the long run...

attitudes like that are impossible to please. had the US cried for war, you would have been "omg the USA is always getting in other peoples buisness". Now that they don't, you say "OMG the USA doesn't care about their allies".quote> i find it interesting that you know what my reactions would be to different geopolitical events; i am by no means one of the peace-loving hippies that believes all the worlds problems could be solved if we all just talked about our problems and maybe had a nice little sing-song. i am against the war in iraq, because (a) the US has questionable intentions, (b) the public was lied to by the administration, © it seems a waste of resources in this so-called "war on terror", and for the US has (d) had a serious impact on their military reserves and their ability to project power. why do you think russia had the oppurtunity to invade a US ally like georgia? because they knew the US was too tied up in iraq to offer any meaningful resistance. this is of course ignoring the human cost of the war, a lot of which - over and above that which can be expected in any war - seems to stem from incompetence of the part of the US plan of occupation. you'll see that i'm not opposed to the war because of any aversion to war itself, but because there are so many flaws involved in the justification and execution of the war itself. in georgia, the US would have been completely justified in defending one of its allies, and a sovereign state, from invasion from another power. the ramifications of such an intervention would have been pretty great, but it would have been justified. strategically, it would have strengthened US alliances throughout the region - alliances which many countries are now having to scrutinize, while instead these countries have been sent the message that against russia, US promises may not be worth the paper they are written on. by allying with georgia, they have "made it their business" - this isn't launching an aggressive war to topple a regime the US finds distasteful, this is defending an ally to which the US has responsibilities. the lesson? perhaps the US shouldn't make promises it can't keep... lastly, a 'cold war' is not an 'extreme scenario' that would require calling up 1/6 of the US population - that's total war. and calling up 50 million people to fight a war isn't just about having the people themselves; it's about the cost to the economy of removing a massive proportion of the productive workforce (and in the US the consuming public), it's about the ability to arm, train, and house 50 million soldiers at public expense (given the massive US debts i find that unfeasible financially), and in todays world calling up 50 million civilians to take part in modern war would simply result in unacceptable casualties. this ignores the political ramifications of drafting 50 million people. i wouldn't say the US is 'capable' of calling up those numbers and moulding them into an effective force, i'd say the US 'has' 50 million able-bodied young people and that's about it.