WikiLeaks: Haiti Disaster Capitalism's Latest Electroshock Patient

Originally posted by Imhotepsol
reply to post by Billmeister

 

The sick thing is we all know these practices are going on. We just don't want to believe that instead of fighting for our freedom they're actually fighting to enslave another population. Under the pretense of these invasions and wars they set up shops where eventually all of the work we once did will go.

They can't get away with beating down on us so much anymore so they take those practices somewhere else.

Respectfully, I disagree. The GOOD thing is that we know. Catch my drift?



Thank you so much for this excellent submission. It is why I appreciate ATS, and feel it is the closest thing to a free press that we can have at this point. It does its job very well. You do.

reply to post by Dragoon01


It's called rigging the game. Again it seems you have difficulty distinguishing between totalitarian control and economical control. One does not have to be physically broken to be a slave if the rules are set up where they have no choice but to slave themselves in order to survive. The way things are set up gives the illusion of choice, but that is far from the reality of the situation. As far as trying to fix Haiti, well there's no way of fixing it as long as they have their obligations to pay back the billions that they owe. They were sold out by their leadership.

Here's an analogy for you, think of a 14 year old hooker that pulls "tricks". She has no where to go and has basically given all control to her pimp (her leaders/government) who "protects" her. He's got her hooked on meth (loans) in which she sells her body to johns (corporations) in order to get her fix. Without johns, she would have no way of getting her fix and would have to find a way to drastically change her situation (withdrawal, robbery etc..). However with a steady flow of johns she would always have a fix and her situation will never change.

Who are the bad guys? They all are. The girl for running away (public not wanting to take responsibility, or being ignorant of it), the pimp for pimping teens (government greed) and addicting her with meth (loans), and the johns (corporations) for exploiting the situation.

Well set aside the age aspect because a 14year old is not old enough to consent (this begs the question of why you use a 14year old in your analogy do you think that Haitians are all inocent children?) I dont see it that way. Why is the John exploiting the situation? The John is simply acting out on his basic needs (Corporations exist to do one thing earn a profit for their investors) The Prostitute is trading her labor for his funds. My advocacy of the free market takes the Pimp out of the picture and allows the John to make arrangements with the Prostitute directly for the cost of her goods. She does not need a Pimp in the picture. The motivations of the John are not at all in question he is trying to get the biggest bang for his buck. You seem to be insisting that capitalism (the freemarket) somehow needs a Pimp to become a third party to these transactions. You seem to be advocating for that Pimp by heaping scorn and blame on the Johns. Who is more evil here the Johns who are just customers. The Prostitute who just wants to sell her labor or the Pimp that provides no service or product but wants a cut of the action?

Be aware that I have no problem with prostitution being legal or drug use for that matter. Freedom means being free enough to make mistakes and living with them.

reply to post by Flatfish



Corporations are legal entities that are owned by investors. Those investors elect a board to represent their investment. That board is made up of real people who have a right to petition their government to address the issues effecting their business.
Please explain how this is different than a labor uniion? Do you also feel that Big labor should not be allowed to donate to pollitical campaigns. If you agree with that then I will give you credit for consistancy.

I dont disagree that when business has to big a hold on government that there is a problem but I do not knee-jerk blame all problems on business nor do I feel that people who make a lot of money are evil. That is nonsense and needs to be stamped out.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Corporations are legal entities that are owned by investors. Those investors elect a board to represent their investment. That board is made up of real people who have a right to petition their government to address the issues effecting their business.
Please explain how this is different than a labor uniion?

Probably because the investors are obviously not the workers themselves

Corporations gaining independence is an abomination that destroys countries. Didn't we learn anything from Keynesist economics that brought us out of the Great Depression?

reply to post by Dragoon01


I feel absolutely the same with regards to "Unions" as I do about "Corporations" when it comes to political donations and/or their alleged right to redress their government. Just because they are made up of people doesn't mean that they are people.

I do however believe that the individual members of the union, as well as those who invest in and/or work for corporations do indeed have the "individual" right to access their government. Furthermore, I believe that paid lobbyist, regardless who employes them, should be totally outlawed. Paid lobbying of our elected officials is probably the single largest reason that our government is totally dysfunctional at the present time. It's also the reason that it's almost impossible to get rid of a politician's influence. You can vote them out of office but then they just become lobbyist and continue to remain in power. The term "Lobbying" is just a fancy word for corruption, just ask Jack Abramoff.

IMO, the right to redress your grievances before your government is intended to be a right extended to individual "people" and not to special interest groups of people, who amass large sums of money and utilize it to influence legislation.

Just for the record, I'm a retired union longshoreman who was an official of one sort or another for more than 25 yrs. of my 32 yrs. in the industry. I served for over ten yrs. as a trustee on our benefit trust fund board managing over 500 million in assets and to this day, I stand behind unions and their benefit to society. I just don't believe that the right to redress our grievances before our government should extent beyond the "individual' basis.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
Well set aside the age aspect because a 14year old is not old enough to consent (this begs the question of why you use a 14year old in your analogy do you think that Haitians are all inocent children?) I dont see it that way. Why is the John exploiting the situation? The John is simply acting out on his basic needs (Corporations exist to do one thing earn a profit for their investors) The Prostitute is trading her labor for his funds. My advocacy of the free market takes the Pimp out of the picture and allows the John to make arrangements with the Prostitute directly for the cost of her goods. She does not need a Pimp in the picture. The motivations of the John are not at all in question he is trying to get the biggest bang for his buck. You seem to be insisting that capitalism (the freemarket) somehow needs a Pimp to become a third party to these transactions. You seem to be advocating for that Pimp by heaping scorn and blame on the Johns. Who is more evil here the Johns who are just customers. The Prostitute who just wants to sell her labor or the Pimp that provides no service or product but wants a cut of the action?

Be aware that I have no problem with prostitution being legal or drug use for that matter. Freedom means being free enough to make mistakes and living with them.

I am assuming based on your post that you missed this part from my post:

Who are the bad guys? They all are. The girl for running away (public not wanting to take responsibility, or being ignorant of it), the pimp for pimping teens (government greed) and addicting her with meth (loans), and the johns (corporations) for exploiting the situation.

I use 14 year old as a metaphor for the public at large for a few reasons:
1) Immaturity and lack of responsibility (just like group think public)
2) Self centeredness (like most typical teenagers) which matches the public nicely.
3) Ability to understand right and wrong, but doesn't have the ability to use critical thinking to it's fullest intent (again doesn't that ring a bell?).
4) The tendacy of teenagers wanting to "do things on their own" while at the same time feeling insecure and giving their power away (pimp, government). The public wants their individual rights shielded yet do nothing themselves to prevent government from doing so, and in fact do the opposite by being apathetic and lazy.

The analogy might not be polished but I think you know where I am going with it. BTW this isn't just meant for Haitians; as you can see it can apply to almost any country.

If the prostitute was an adult then that changes the analogy quiet a bit doesn't it? Funny how you are quick to replace a misguided teenager with obvious issues (that's addicted to meth) with an adult wanting to establish a business transaction. Also it is quite telling that you absolve the "john" from all responsibility and downplay his part in it to the level of buying a starbucks coffee. It speaks loudly of your world view.

Not only it reveals how corrupt they are
but how little concern both administrations have for haitians, for their sovereignty and how hard Obama is trying to keep jobs AWAY from the US. God forbids tackling poverty where they have factories.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


I did not miss that i chose to dismiss it for what it was. A silly attempt to appear fair. We both know thats not the case.
Your opinon of most of the worlds citizens as being irresponsilbe children speaks volumes about your world view.

All we need is some bright adult like yourself to tell us all whats good for us right?

Yes I absolve the John, just as I absolve the prostitute because it is simply a transaction. Your value judgement of capitalism is no more or less flawed than the religious persons value judgement of prostitution. You seek to use the police power of government to interject yourself into a situation that you have no business being involved in. Because you believe that the people selling their labor are to stupid and misguided to bear responsibility for their actions or enter into a contract. You are no better than the pimp. You portray the john as being an evil monster to justify your role as a third party to the transaction. The poor Haitian "children" need your help to keep from being "exploited" by those evil corporations. Face it you dont have a problem with the relationship all you have a problem with is that the "pimp" in question is not the "pimp" that you approve of. You want the current government of Haiti to be replaced by a "peoples" government that distributes everything equally right? We all know how that turns out dont we. Some pimps are more equal than others!

reply to post by Flatfish


Props to you for being consistant. I dont think very highly of labor unions but I respect the attitude that if business cannot lobby then unions should not as well. I agree it would be better than what we have now. I dont think that any one group should have unequal sway over government but my solution is rather than try to control contributions and layer rules on to the donation process I would restrict the ability of government to regulate and pass laws. This has the effect of shrinking government to its constitutional limits and removing the incentive for people to lobby government in the first place. The rape of the commerce and general welfare clause has put us in this place.

reply to post by Dragoon01


Wow really? You have me all figured out even though I've explained it in simple terms why I feel the way that I feel. Don't turn this into some sort of ideological battle because if I wanted that I would have commented on a political thread or religious thread. You make a heck lot of assumptions on what you believe my views are and exaggerate certain points while ignoring others. You also seem to have a knack for putting words in people's mouths.

Believe what you will, it's quite obvious that you wear you ideology on your sleeve and if I've learned anything on forums it's that people like you are almost impossible to have open minded discussions. I've wasted enough time with you

reply to post by Copperflower


Thanks for the kind words. It's good to know you're appreciated

reply to post by Dragoon01


If making money is natural then I suspect cutting open an animal would produce gold coins and cutting down a tree would reveal dollar bills.

Money is a metaphor. There is nothing natural about it. X stands in the place of Y. Plain and simple. A man can accumulate vast sums of money (even electronically), but this allows for the kind of control over the wealth that would never have been achievable under natural ability. Try and find a cheetah that can not only control the actions of all gazelles within its hunting area, but also the gazelles that are removed in space and time. It's a ridiculous concept.

reply to post by Sphota


I love that money analogy so much I may have to steal it.