>>>The most succesful in exploiting
>>>the labour of many for
>>>the benefit of the few?
>>
>>Obviously we are talking about any
>>country that has had a
>>King or an Aristocracy, France,
>>England, Ashanti Kingdom, ..
>>Definitely not America.
>
>No, of course. No such
>thing as sweatshops or maquiladores.

What is your point? When you look at the total working population of Mexico, a very small percentage works in American owned factories.

Apparently there are lots of other jobs for people to take.

>The fact that American companies mainly
>exploit FOREIGN people instead of
>their own population doesn’t make
>it less worse to me.

American companies use their own people for lots of things. I was gonna be a wafer fab tech at motorola or applied materials or at AMD, if this college thing didn't work out. 12 hour days are not joke.

>No, but the vast majority of
>the so-called "Third World" knows
>real hunger, mainly cos of
>the way world trade is
>organised and structured.

What are you talking about? Drought and traditional farming methods have more to do with hunger than anything else.

Which
>has a lot to do
>with the way the US
>chooses to go. G8, the
>WTO, World Bank, …

Break it down. You cats on the left must be in some special club that doesn't allow you to bring details to light. If anything remember that you and I are not the only people reading this exchange.

>And while only few Americans have
>to worry about warfare, people
>all around this globe have
>been and ARE subject to
>US agression, whether it be
>military, economical, agricultural, political, ...

details.

>
>Nicaragua, Iraq, Chile, Congo, Italy, Mexico,
>Cuba, Colombia, Granada, ...
>Those are just a few.

Iraq - they invaded one of our major interests.
Cuba - Cuban Missile crisis ring a bell? How about American tourist planes shot down?

I'm sure I could go through the rest and find a good reason for involvement.

>Plenty of people in- and outside
>the US.
>Start with the same countries I
>just mentioned.
>Then add that other side of
>Philly Black Thought showed and
>other main US cities.

Folks in Compton are worried more about the criminals than the cops. The same can be said for every hood in America. I've spent plenty of time in these spots. You need to really study it first hand to know what I'm talking about.

>>A better question, and shorter list
>>would be things that we
>>are the least successful at.
>
>. accessible health care

Medicare, Medicaid. There are lots of accessible health care options. Most fulltime employees have health insurance, or can qualify for such plans. Americans also have the best facilities at their disposal. Canadians, who have universal health care, routinely cross the border to see American doctors.

>. non racist police and institutions

America has problems. Believe me as a black man living in the South I know of them first hand. I've sacked groceries for Klansmen, I've walked in on Neo Nazi groups. I've been in and out of the criminal injustice system. (as a law clerk fortunately). I know all too well about racist police and institutions.

It still doesn't compare to what it's like in other countries.

>. no political prisoners

This isn't china. Leftists aren't jailed for their ideas. Mumia Abu Jamal is not a political prisoner in the same sense as those who spoke out during Tianamen square. Americans are jailing dissidents. Otherwise Farrakhan and Metzger would be in prison right now.

>. separation religion/politics (the US is
>very heavily "Christian" inspired, swearing
>on the bible, references to
>God in presidential speeches, ...)

Most the folks in the US are Christian. We have explicit protections in our constitution to stop the establishment of a state religion.

>. war on drugs (Orwellian terminology)

We aren't winning it. Legalization wouldn't get at the underlying problem though.

>Grain that has been engineered genetically
>without even considering the possible
>long term effects of it.

It's been in the market for years now. As have been plenty of other engineered foodstuffs. How long have Twinkies been out there. You're falling for the GMO hype.

>Meat filled with hormones, meat we
>won't even allow in Europe
>since it carries big risks
>for people's health.

Name some. Are you suggesting that the meat industry and the health industry are conspiring to give Americans heart disease?

Eating meat ain't healthy in general. (at least compared to an all vegetarian diet) But are you suggesting that cows that are given drugs to combat disease and promote growth are somehow unsafe?

>(KRS,
>"Beef")

Please don't quote KRS on a political discussion board. KRS got so many problems with his logic and ideas it's not even funny. In the said song, he recommended Elijah Muhammad's "How to Eat to Live". Last time I checked the former NOI leader wasn't a nutritionist.

>Plus your grain is so cheap
>since it's heavily funded with
>public money,

Again you're talking about something inherent to our political system. Are you a true capitalist and believe that a country should give up an industry because others are more efficient?

American farmers are constantly in debt despite having lots of grain. That is a function of the world market producing lots of grain. It seems as is the world is still hungry though.

>and it's sold
>on a closed market with
>heavy tarrif barriers for any
>non-Western producers.

You're getting a lot of stuff confused.

America already produces more grain that it can use. That's why most family farms are one growing season away from the poor house. What you are suggesting is that starving 3rd world countries want to export even more rice into a rice saturated country. To protect the American farmer from even more loss, the american govt guarantees him a price, called a subsidy, and raises tariffs on rice from other countries.

Now you are telling me that the same countries that are starving because of American business, are trying to send us food. And because we raise the price on their food, they are starving.

Give me a specific example so that I can follow you better.

>Which means
>it “coincidentally” also destroys foreign
>economies, which makes it easier
>for American companies to take
>over these industries and businesses
>and make those same people
>they empoverished work for them
>at (what a surprise !)
>LOW wages.

They were working for LOW(compared to American wages, which are low compared to European wages) wages before Americans got there. And nothing keeps them in those industries.

>The US wellbeing and prosperity is
>largely built on the US
>companies income, which a lot
>of them generate through sweatshop/low
>wage labour or abuse of
>non existing environmental legislation in
>these and similar countries.

Give me the facts.

>>No one asked me to
>>join this society. I
>>was born into it.
>
>You DO have a choice to
>stay or leave.

Just like folks in other countries that work in sweatshops have a choice?

A
>lot of people around me
>don't know another way of
>life than to take profit
>of other people

It's called organization. I can benefit from the labor of others. 2 people farming one acre each, can not produce as much as two people farming 2 acres. The amount of land doesn't change, but the division of labor makes it more efficient.

>try to say that there
>are a lot of problems
>that stop ambitious and hard
>working people to make it,

no doubt. It's mathematical actually. In order to have a middle and upper class you have to have a lower class. You can't have a 2 without a 1.

>and that they can do
>nothing about, cos they don't
>have any access to power,

I thought votes counted for something on this board.

>or cos the laws that
>should guarantee free access to
>all are are not applied.

For instance?


>What I'm also trying to show
>is that you can have
>the best laws in the
>world, but if they aren't
>applied every single time (not
>just ‘every now and then’,
>that’s not a ‘law’, that’s
>‘coincidence’) they're worthless .

That is every law. We don't have an omniscient force to enforce every law on the books.

>To make sure all laws
>are applied, you need some
>form of control. I
>think this should be democratic
>control (not necessarily a referendum,
>but an appropriate representation of
>people's wishes).

You don't trust the people? Wait a minute...

>What alternative do you have for
>controlling how laws are applied
>? Companies ?

Private companies don't have any public oversight.

>This would be true, if at
>least every person had access
>to expressing what they think
>in the first place.

Everyone has access. Not everyone will listen. I can put out a zine and circulate it, but it doesn't compare in efficacy to a multi-million dollar TV campaign. Should everyone have access to a national TV network?

>Everyone IS an individual, but
>not everyone is RECOGNIZED as
>such.

Folks are recognized all the time. But do the powers that be really care?


>>It's called foreign aid, social security,
>>and welfare. My tax
>>dollars go to all sorts
>>of things I might, or
>>might not approve of.
>
>Foreign aid = charity ?

In the minds of most Americans yes. When folks are starving the backwoods of WVA then why are we sending food and jobs abroad.

>Wow. Did you know
>that most foreign aid is
>paid some way, by the
>country that gets it ?

Loans are made with strings attached. Standard practice.

> Did you know that
>most foreign aid benefits US/Western
>companies, and very often not
>the foreign population at all

The foreign folks work there right?

>?
>
>Social security and welfare are not
>charity. Do you already
>know today that you’ll never
>have to use it ?

I don't know that. I could be injured on the job and have to collect.

> If so, congratulations Mr.
>Nostradamus. You pay a
>little money now to cover
>the much bigger expenses made
>later whenever you’ll be hospitalized
>(at least that’s how it
>works over here).

I pay for the senior citizens of today. My grandchildren are supposed to pay mine off.


>Maybe this is an answer :
>becos people in a complete
>different area than yours helped
>paying for the hospital/doctor/nurse when
>you were born ?
>Or do you regret that
>too ?

My folks paid for my doctor. That's how it works in America. You pay for services rendered.

but I get your point, I was trying, in vain it seems, to be sarcastic.

>Or, a variation : why does
>Nike build a factory in
>some other country, why don’t
>they provide people with jobs
>here ? Strange you’re
>not struggling with this question.

Cause American companies are greedy, and folks in other countries have a lower standard of living, and will work for a lot less.

Why should Indonesians live like Americans?

>Well, so is health care.
>A service is a
>product too.
>What ? You’d rather pay
>the moment you really need
>it. Okay, but then
>prepare to pay the actual
>price. Do you know
>how much a medical scanner
>actually costs ?

You're starting to get confused here. When I get my bones x-rayed, I'm paying for the service and not the capital. I pay for the costs of one use of that machine and its personnell. The person who owns that machine pays the capital cost based on an aggregate of people like me.

>You’d better start saving now if
>you want to be able
>to afford it. Uhm,
>maybe you are already saving
>right now, through paying taxes
>?

To an extent tax dollars support medicine. But the engine that drives is the money that consumers bring.

>We’ll talk again the day you’re
>seriously ill and can’t afford
>your medicine or therapy.

I will eventually die, as will all Americans and everyone else in lesser developed nations.

>I don’t know the US legislation,
>but I’d be very surprised
>if abortion is allowed with
>a 7 month old foetus.

Federal law says nothing about it. Supreme court rulings are another matter. State laws are the ones that govern it. It is possible in some states to get a really late term abortion. I think 7 months might be pushing it. But 5 or 6 is not unheard of.

>If the US allow abortion up
>till the 7th month, I
>think that’s pretty sick and
>can be called ‘murder’ indeed.

So what's 3 or 4 months then?

>
>>Or should you leave the uneducated
>>masses with the nuclear launch
>>controls?
>
>The real question is : would
>there be any nuclear launch
>controls if there had been
>democracy in the US ?

There has always been democracy in the US. Americans, as well as others, are afraid of things different from themselves. In this case it was communists.
k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/