When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain/.
-
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans Americans ever done for us?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
I find it amusing that of the first three replies to a Life of Brian quote, only one of them actually seemed to recognize it. The others should turn in their geek cards immediately.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I find it amusing that of the first three replies to a Life of Brian quote, only one of them actually seemed to recognize it. The others should turn in their geek cards immediately.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)What is a geek card and where can I get one?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What is a geek card and where can I get one?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
What is a geek card and where can I get one?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
The same as the mental disease certificate, but it comes in a different color and you’re not eligible for a public welfare. Other than that there are no significant differences.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
I find it amusing that of the first three replies to a Life of Brian quote, only one of them actually seemed to recognize it. The others should turn in their geek cards immediately.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Man, that was revoked YEARS ago... I can't even remember the last time I had a life.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Man, that was revoked YEARS ago... I can't even remember the last time I had a life.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
GO back to its founding days. Samuel Adams, Boston traders/marketeers/smugglers, dress up as natives, and attack British ships carrying tea to: 1) Protect their market 2) To try to break the treaty between the British and the native americans; a treaty that guaranteed that the interior of the US would not come under British control. Then I thought of the Ford whats its name with the exploding fuel tank, the copany decided it was cheaper to pay out for deaths than to fix the design. The Iraq war, whose sole intent was to secure an oil supply. When one realises how close US government is to US big business is there anything the US has done that ISNT for menetary gain and prompted by business interests?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Then I thought of the Ford whats its name with the exploding fuel tank, the copany decided it was cheaper to pay out for deaths than to fix the design.
Pinto
fat_boy wrote:
The Iraq war, whose sole intent was to secure an oil supply.
And look how well that turned out.
fat_boy wrote:
When one realises how close US government is to US big business is there anything the US has done that ISNT for menetary gain and prompted by business interests?
FDR did quite a bit, and the American conservative vilifies him for it. There seem to be two forces in US history, the idealists, and the assholes. More often than not the assholes get their way, but when the idealists actually accomplish something they intended to it typically winds up in our history books. That said, the assholes have a few entries of their own, war of 1812, that lovely section on hoovervilles(But the free market works everyone :thumbsup:), and their most recent contributions with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
-
Depends... Do multiple personalities count?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Depends... Do multiple personalities count?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Some already have. They don't get along.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
How does that follow? Spending a lot on guns is what you do to have butter? It sounds good, and all, but it does not make sense.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
How does that follow? Spending a lot on guns is what you do to have butter? It sounds good, and all, but it does not make sense.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Spending a lot on guns makes you have lots of guns. It's clearly an attempt to establish a better position in the world market. And it doesn't give you anything "else" - what do you get from being a super power? Do other countries love you? Hell no. Do you get richer? Sure. Just look at any former super power - at their height they were pretty rich, even the USSR (though clearly their system was broken).
-
Spending a lot on guns makes you have lots of guns. It's clearly an attempt to establish a better position in the world market. And it doesn't give you anything "else" - what do you get from being a super power? Do other countries love you? Hell no. Do you get richer? Sure. Just look at any former super power - at their height they were pretty rich, even the USSR (though clearly their system was broken).
So, us spent bucks on defense. How did all the money we poured into marshal plan and nato get us a better position in the world market? Post wwii, us only invaded korea, vietnam, haiti, panama, iraq, afghanistan. Please explain how adventurism made us so rich. Our richness has not been driven by colonial control, as that of other super powers. I don't see the purpose of other countries loving the us. You do what's right, because it is, not so your neighbors will love you. I don't see that the USSR was ever rich, when they had food shortages all the time. But I'm sure I'm biased. because I don't see north korea as rich. But if you have facts, I'm interested in learning them.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
So, us spent bucks on defense. How did all the money we poured into marshal plan and nato get us a better position in the world market? Post wwii, us only invaded korea, vietnam, haiti, panama, iraq, afghanistan. Please explain how adventurism made us so rich. Our richness has not been driven by colonial control, as that of other super powers. I don't see the purpose of other countries loving the us. You do what's right, because it is, not so your neighbors will love you. I don't see that the USSR was ever rich, when they had food shortages all the time. But I'm sure I'm biased. because I don't see north korea as rich. But if you have facts, I'm interested in learning them.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
North Korea and the USSR are weird ones, if you judge them like you would judge a western economy they seem failed, but they operate differently. They don't really need money to be rich, the govt owns everything already. North Korea doesn't even have taxes. They're hardly active on the international market, but they don't have to, they just make their stuff themselves. And as you can see, that's working out pretty well - North Korea has the 4th largest army in the world (and not just in unarmed manpower, they have tons of equipment as well) so they must be doing something right. And North Korea isn't a super power. They just talk a lot. But it's all quite easy to see, just look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29[^] The top 17 (not counting the EU) have all been a super power (or part of one) at some point. It would be more than 17 if it weren't for the couple of combo breakers, but then of course most of the countries there are not super powers anymore (haven't been for quite some time) and dropped a bit. The top 3 (including the EU) represent all current super powers, unless they have changed since I last checked. I definitely see a pattern there.
-
North Korea and the USSR are weird ones, if you judge them like you would judge a western economy they seem failed, but they operate differently. They don't really need money to be rich, the govt owns everything already. North Korea doesn't even have taxes. They're hardly active on the international market, but they don't have to, they just make their stuff themselves. And as you can see, that's working out pretty well - North Korea has the 4th largest army in the world (and not just in unarmed manpower, they have tons of equipment as well) so they must be doing something right. And North Korea isn't a super power. They just talk a lot. But it's all quite easy to see, just look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29[^] The top 17 (not counting the EU) have all been a super power (or part of one) at some point. It would be more than 17 if it weren't for the couple of combo breakers, but then of course most of the countries there are not super powers anymore (haven't been for quite some time) and dropped a bit. The top 3 (including the EU) represent all current super powers, unless they have changed since I last checked. I definitely see a pattern there.
You made the broad statement
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
You have said nothing to support it, though you reword it to "rich", and redefine that to whatever it is PDRK has. Let me get this out of the way for your: tl;dr It's kind of funny, whenever I bring up the Marshall plan in threads like this, it is skipped over. The US is such a bad actor, and always has been, right? Remember? The joke used to be, if you economy was faltering, lose a war with the US, they will boot strap your economy. Remember "The Mouse that Roared"? That was the US only caring about material gain, right? My point with North Korea is they spend large on military vs gdp, and are not a superpower. They are also not rich, by any stretch, except the dictators. They are a failure to everyone else. Their military spending has not resulted in material gain. So how well is that military spending working out for the average slave citizen? No taxes? What a paradise! What income to tax? The USSR was a military superpower, but it was not interested in material gain, if you listen to the apologists. Why, their workers, who were the very model of socialist living, were standing in line for basic foodstuffs. The USSR was not rich, or they would not have bankrupted into pseudo free market. Could the pattern you see be that countries that have something to lose need an army capable of defending it? I know it is a matter of divine revelation to you that the US only went into the ME for oil. But you have us be so incompetent that we didn't bother pumping any out while we were there, and I find that offensive.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You made the broad statement
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
You have said nothing to support it, though you reword it to "rich", and redefine that to whatever it is PDRK has. Let me get this out of the way for your: tl;dr It's kind of funny, whenever I bring up the Marshall plan in threads like this, it is skipped over. The US is such a bad actor, and always has been, right? Remember? The joke used to be, if you economy was faltering, lose a war with the US, they will boot strap your economy. Remember "The Mouse that Roared"? That was the US only caring about material gain, right? My point with North Korea is they spend large on military vs gdp, and are not a superpower. They are also not rich, by any stretch, except the dictators. They are a failure to everyone else. Their military spending has not resulted in material gain. So how well is that military spending working out for the average slave citizen? No taxes? What a paradise! What income to tax? The USSR was a military superpower, but it was not interested in material gain, if you listen to the apologists. Why, their workers, who were the very model of socialist living, were standing in line for basic foodstuffs. The USSR was not rich, or they would not have bankrupted into pseudo free market. Could the pattern you see be that countries that have something to lose need an army capable of defending it? I know it is a matter of divine revelation to you that the US only went into the ME for oil. But you have us be so incompetent that we didn't bother pumping any out while we were there, and I find that offensive.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically. Also, the EU is just as guilty of this. It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there? And north korea is neither a super power nor rich and therefore proves no point whatsoever, except perhaps that having a big-ass military doesn't automatically make you a super power (but that was never a point of discussion, so whatever) The USSR not interested in material gain? Maybe officially - yet their Great Plan only focused on material gain. It also worked, they were rich alright, it just didn't work in the long run.
RichardM1 wrote:
Could the pattern you see be that countries that have something to lose need an army capable of defending it?
Yes, a prime example of caring so much about material gain that they're trying to protect it.
-
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically. Also, the EU is just as guilty of this. It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there? And north korea is neither a super power nor rich and therefore proves no point whatsoever, except perhaps that having a big-ass military doesn't automatically make you a super power (but that was never a point of discussion, so whatever) The USSR not interested in material gain? Maybe officially - yet their Great Plan only focused on material gain. It also worked, they were rich alright, it just didn't work in the long run.
RichardM1 wrote:
Could the pattern you see be that countries that have something to lose need an army capable of defending it?
Yes, a prime example of caring so much about material gain that they're trying to protect it.
harold aptroot wrote:
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically.
It makes no sense if you have an inbuilt filter that keeps repeating what you do. You say the sky is cloudy. I say look at the sun. you say you can't see it because the sky is cloudy, But history does not support that as the only reason: Bill Gates never worried about material gain, he worried about kicking butt on the next deal. The byproduct was wealth. My focus is on solving problems and making sure the customer gets what they want. The result is that I am paid well. I don't give the money back, and I wouldn't work for no pay, but a high income hasn't been my focus, it has been a byproduct of my capability and work ethic. The USSR was never rich, the citizens never had great material wealth, unless you were part of the dictatorial class. The proletariat were never better off then the serfs thy were under the Czars, and were probably worse off.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there?
Don't flatter yourselves. In Western Europe's post WWII state, they were not trading partners. We could have dumped that money anywhere and created trade partners. Why did we do it, then? Western Europe were our friends, & a strong Western Europe could stand as a wall against communist dictatorship coming from the East, protecting itself and drawing the resources of the USSR away from easier targets.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically.
It makes no sense if you have an inbuilt filter that keeps repeating what you do. You say the sky is cloudy. I say look at the sun. you say you can't see it because the sky is cloudy, But history does not support that as the only reason: Bill Gates never worried about material gain, he worried about kicking butt on the next deal. The byproduct was wealth. My focus is on solving problems and making sure the customer gets what they want. The result is that I am paid well. I don't give the money back, and I wouldn't work for no pay, but a high income hasn't been my focus, it has been a byproduct of my capability and work ethic. The USSR was never rich, the citizens never had great material wealth, unless you were part of the dictatorial class. The proletariat were never better off then the serfs thy were under the Czars, and were probably worse off.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there?
Don't flatter yourselves. In Western Europe's post WWII state, they were not trading partners. We could have dumped that money anywhere and created trade partners. Why did we do it, then? Western Europe were our friends, & a strong Western Europe could stand as a wall against communist dictatorship coming from the East, protecting itself and drawing the resources of the USSR away from easier targets.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Merely stating things doesn't make them true. I provided evidence, you provide the "you suck because I'm right" argument - as you always do.
RichardM1 wrote:
Why did we do it, then?
Material gain and a nice shield against the commies. Very noble. Now excuse me, but I have better things to do than discuss history with trolls.