|
|
|
|
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 6/24/2007 12:59:30 PM | A close friend of mine gave me a link to a news website where you get a different perspective of world news that isn't media driven. I'm not very political but the article I'm referring to really struck a cord deep inside me and I felt compelled to share it's insights with everyone concerned. Whether it be valid or not, it's something I think should be know and addressed. 
Below is the introduction and this is the link. http://www.narconews.com/Issue46/article2691.html
Workers and farmers in the United States and Canada have been largely kept in the dark about the tragedy unleashed on their counterparts in Mexico with the 1994 entrance of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But the same all-out screwing is about to happen to them.
An alliance of big business owners is openly plotting the economic Mexicanization of an important region of the Northeast US and Eastern Canada. They call their new world “Atlantica,” and have imposed their borders around it as if drawing a new “country” on a Risk game board. Here’s the map of “their” new country, not one founded upon democratic decisions, but with orders barked from an unelected elite of corporate flunkies whose only law is to maximize profits for the owners. Maybe you can see your house or job, or that of family members and friends, on their map: | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 6/25/2007 2:16:48 AM | | In the article, the author says that Candians are much more aware of this Atlantica thing than Americans are. If that's true, why aren't Canadians here on this site posting in this thread expressing their concern about Atlantica? | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 6/25/2007 2:52:46 AM | Wait...so if Capitalism is the enemy of Democracy, whats its ally? Socialism?
I ain't saying the system is perfect- but to claim that supporting Capitalism is turning over our freedoms to a bunch of bankers is kinda jumping the gun..... | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 6/25/2007 2:04:25 PM | I suspect that most people in general are still unaware of the Atlantica conspiracy.
Hmm, it may not necessarily be a fallacy but more of a prediction based upon results in Mexico which are facts.
Again, I'm not a big fan of politics but I think it's imperative to learn from others mistakes and to promote awareness of what could be next. | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 6/26/2007 3:55:01 AM | | Anyone hear of the super highway that runs from Mexico through to Canada? It is currently being built but you never hear anything about it in the news. Scary stuff going on right under our noses! | |
|
| |
| |
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 6/26/2007 5:12:57 AM | Voluntary, democratic socialism has indeed worked in the early pioneering State of Israel on the kibbutz and the moshav. The problem is that the moment Americans hear "socialism," they think of Castro, Stalin and Pol Pot. Sir, that is exactly like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition and the Witches of Salem nightmare.
The reason Marxism has failed is not because it's "against human nature" or too utopian, and all that. The real reason is that it has consistently been tried out in backward countries like Czarist Russia, Chiang-Kai-Shek's China or Batista's Cuba that lacked the necessary preconditions for a people's economy.
True socialism can only work in a democratic society with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due processs of law. Yes, capitalism is indeed screwing democracy --- and totalitarianism is the ENEMY of true socialism.
Why has a people's economy never been implemented in democratic and developed
countries? Because by imperialism, they have postponed the day of reckoning at home. By expanding overseas, they used foreign wealth as anaesthesia on the misery of their own poorer people. The Japanese Empire, the White Man's Burden, Manifest Destiny. But that baloney doesn't work anymore, so they're back to screwing at home | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 6/26/2007 5:54:14 AM | Well said^^^^
As to the issues of the OP:
What a crock o' shit, go to the donations page to see what really drives this nonsense.
My biggest problem with this kind of dreck is how easily it attaches itself to reality based corporate/political dissent, adding to it nothing but perceived incredulity.
The gene pool needs more chlorine. | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 7/2/2007 11:17:46 AM | | First, if America or Mexico go thru a prolonged recession it will destory both economies with 300 billion a year offical trade and another couple hunderd billion done under the table of course. The goal would be to make sure Mexico does not go on populist bingle like they did back in the late 1970s, and America to avoid reactionary policies of Hubert Hoover back in the late 1920s. The world is globalizing and people will notice over time business can shift captial country with little or no controls on outflowing captial. The social system American got in place now is outdated to adjust to the fast changing nature of the global economy, and going back to protectism will destory all economies in the world in the long run. The solution is providing wage insurance to workers, better job training, better healthcare system. Why do you think they make a lot of cars in Canada verse the Untied States at times its called healthcare costs, and labor. Healthcare costs not contain in the next ten years the Untied States will look to risky for some forgien investors. Neo-Liberalism is not perfect but statist style economies never work in the end. | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 2/22/2008 12:36:25 PM |
Voluntary, democratic socialism has indeed worked in the early pioneering State of Israel on the kibbutz and the moshav. The problem is that the moment Americans hear "socialism," they think of Castro, Stalin and Pol Pot. Sir, that is exactly like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition and the Witches of Salem nightmare. Having lived in Israel for a number of years, and spoken with many people who lived on the kibbutzim and moshavim for many years, the kibbutzim tended to require government subsidies to survive with the exception of a few which managed to survive on large amounts of exports such as Kibbutz Lavi. The moshavim tended to be much more self-sufficient, and rarely needed government support, and most showed a profit, which benefitted all the moshavniks.
The problem tends to be not with the kibbutz or the moshav itself, but that none of these societies are large enough to provide all the services that humanity relies upon. They aren't really large enough for a hospital and certainly not large enough to support a cardiac unit, or surgical training, or a university, even though they often require people with degrees such as metallurgists. So they need to import some goods and services. So they need to generate money, to pay for it. To balance that out, they need to make exports for sale.
Kibbutzim tended to be run on communist ideals, and all money and property was owned by the kibbutz kitty. It was usually the case that there wasn't enough capitalism to support the needed imports. Moshavim tended to be run on the ideals of socialism, allowing the ownership of personal property and earning your own money, and in that way, enough capitalism was provided to pay for the much-needed imports, and even produce a surplus.
The reason Marxism has failed is not because it's "against human nature" or too utopian, and all that. The real reason is that it has consistently been tried out in backward countries like Czarist Russia, Chiang-Kai-Shek's China or Batista's Cuba that lacked the necessary preconditions for a people's economy. Marxism is a set of fine ideals, in the abstract form. The problem comes in when you try and figure out how to implement those goals. From what I can see of the ideals of Marxism, they are a set of morals for any society, ideals that to my knowledge, every society has claimed to keep to, since the dawn of time. Even Fascists merely claim that having one dictator is the best way to help the people. So the problem with Marxism is that it is what everybody says they believe in. Everybody is a Marxist.
True socialism can only work in a democratic society with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due processs of law. Yes, capitalism is indeed screwing democracy --- and totalitarianism is the ENEMY of true socialism. There is a great sense of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion and a due process of law in many countries that are admittedly extremely capitalist. Correct me if I am wrong, but a society without freedom of speech is a censored society, a society without freedom of religion is a religiously oppressive society, and a society that does not have a due process of law is a lawless and unjust society. How does a censored society, that has religious oppression and is lawless make itself unable to have wealth controlled by the community? Conversely, what about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or process of law, make it possible for the community to control the wealth of the nation? Why cannot a society have every part of their public and private life regulated by the state, and still have the wealth of the nation controlled by the community?
It strikes me that socialism is an ideology that speaks to how finances are controlled and ONLY how finances are controlled. However, we have very few societies in which financial spending and distribution is tightly controlled, other than societies in which the state takes everything through taxes or in which the state takes everything to "redistribute" to the people, which almost always means redistribution of great wealth to the few who are friends and members of the ruling government. I believe that socialism would mean a totalitarian control of the economy, such as minimum AND maximum wages for each type of job, and minimum and maximum prices for each type of goods and services. It is only the price you pay and the money you are paid that determines the economy, even in shares, for shares are all about the share prices, and the share dividends (wages). So if those factors were put up for vote by proportional representation, I believe that you would have a true socialist economy. You could do what you liked with everything else, because even in a dictatorship, the dictator cannot have 10 big houses without having someone build them for him, and in a socialist dictatorship, the dictator would still have to pay the workers, and it would be the people who dictated how much and where he got the money from.It is not so much that money is power, but that having no money means no power at all. So by controlling the money, the people control everything. But normally, when you control things directly, the people don't make the most logical decisions. By only dictating the prices, and wages, including the bonuses and dividends, you are dictating the things that are clear. Then everything else slips into place.
Why has a people's economy never been implemented in democratic and developed countries? Because by imperialism, they have postponed the day of reckoning at home. By expanding overseas, they used foreign wealth as anaesthesia on the misery of their own poorer people. The Japanese Empire, the White Man's Burden, Manifest Destiny. But that baloney doesn't work anymore, so they're back to screwing at home Europe is a historical descendant of The Roman Empire. The main reason why the Romans used imperialism was because they could see no way of sustaining their decadent lifestyles without taking resources from others. If we seek to avoid imperialism of one man oppressing another, we will have to accept that self-reliance is what we need, but the average self-reliant man has to work very hard indeed, every day of his life. There would be no room for ease and decadence.
If you really want a good example of where capitalism is falling apart, you only have to look at the housing market, and how few people are able to buy a house, and how much it is messing with the economy. A simple solution would be to set minimum and maximum ranges for each grade of house. But then you could only make a profit by making a serious improvement to your house, and that takes hard graft. Simply put, you could only make a profit according to the effort you made, not according to how sly and crafty you were.
I would posit that this notion of new "countries" is simply a way of imposing a new Wild West on Americans. Why? Because as Golikeri wrote, the Third World has woken up. They can compete with us because of globalisation. They live on less, so they can charge much lower prices. So they will always be able to persuade our competitors to buy from them. So big business in America is slowly losing out to the Third World, to China, India, Japan, even Germany. The only way the rich businessmen will be able to keep their lifestyle is to ensure that they will always be able to buy low and sell high to someone, and it's no longer the Third World. So Atlantica will allow these businessmen to make heavy taxes on imports, which will allow those businessmen to cut the Third World out of the loop, so to speak, and charge whatever prices they want. That does sound like an old-fashioned Wild West, where the Cattle Barons ruled. It is also how Mexico seems to be as well. | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 2/22/2008 2:03:23 PM | --If that's true, why aren't Canadians here on this site posting in this thread expressing their concern about Atlantica?--
Well if you have noticed that quite a few people opposed the NAFTA deal, quite a few people opposed the North American Union because it will carve up our countries into economic sectors and when people lose there jobs, the elite will attempt to solve the problems that we can't. You know the problems they started. As the people lose there living they will negotiate to put industry in the area, give people jobs on the deal that they will not have to pay Corporate taxes and push the burden on the working family because they will promise them jobs and we pay the tax. And the agents for the industry our politicans will agree and get a big bonus from the big corps. for saving them billions. Ain't that how it generally goes, you know, they call it MARKET TRENDS and we believe that.
--It's not like it won't have a border station.--
Hey the reason for freetrade is to get rid of the economic borders.
--True socialism can only work in a democratic society with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due processs of law. Yes, capitalism is indeed screwing democracy --- and totalitarianism is the ENEMY of true socialism.--
Hey thats interesting, It sounds like "We the people, for the people, by the people", interesting concept.
--The goal would be to make sure Mexico does not go on populist bingle like they did back in the late 1970s,--
And who "exactly" will "Make Sure". Are you talking about controling them.
--The world is globalizing and people will notice over time business can shift captial country with little or no controls on outflowing captial.--
Well I guess thats the point, why should they pay Corporate Taxes when the Supreme court ruled that Taxes are to be collected on corporate PROFIT and wages, which are not profit does not get taxed. In America there is no law stating that you MUST pay Income taxes on Wages. If you think there is, then find the law and show us.
--The problem tends to be not with the kibbutz or the moshav itself, but that none of these societies are large enough to provide all the services that humanity relies upon.--
Good one Scorpio, but could you tell me what a Kibbutz is and a Moshov, I don't live there and I got a hankerin to understand the difference. | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 2/22/2008 3:47:55 PM |
Good one Scorpio, but could you tell me what a Kibbutz is and a Moshov, I don't live there and I got a hankerin to understand the difference. Both are communal settlements. But they function slightly differently.
A "Kibbutz" or "collective" is a group of people who all live together, work together, eat together and sleep together. It's a lot like a hippy commune. All the work is decided by the heads of the kibbutz, so you are assigned a job, although you can appeal for a different job. But there's no guarantee you'll get it. You can end up milking the cows, which means that you start at 4 am but you finish by noon. Most of the work on a kibbutz starts early and finishes early, so you have the rest of the day to yourself. Most kibbutzim have a pool, so a lot of people spend a lot of time by the pool. The living accomodation is all designed the same, and you are allocated somewhere to live. The size of your accommodation depends on the size of your family. If you are a single man, you usually end up sharing a room with 1 or 2 people. You all eat in a single large dining room, called a "Chader Ochel" ("eating room"), and the times for breakfast, lunch and dinner are about 8am-9:30am, 12 noon-2pm, and 7pm-9pm. Apart from that, you don't eat. Young children are all put in a crèche or primary school on the kibbutz. It might be that teenagers are sent to a different school, but as far as I remember, everyone got their education in the school kibbutz. In the old days, they even separated the kids from the parents and brought the kids all up together, boys and girls sleeping in the same room, and using the same showers. The adults also used to sleep and shower together, both men and women. But this has changed, because the children who grew up this way turned out with many emotional difficulties relating to members of the opposite sex, and most ended up leaving the kibbutz, and because many of the wives had affairs with other men in the same dorm, and this sparked off quite a lot of killings. So these days, each family gets its own house. All money earned belongs to the kibbutz. So you don't have anything that belongs to you. If you want to purchase anything for your home, yourself or your family, you ask the kibbutz for it. You don't have any money, so you have no real way to amuse yourself. The kibbutz had a library, although it was never full. There would be an old-fashioned film on a projector once a week for entertainment. If you wanted to leave the kibbutz to visit somewhere else, then you had to let people know and arrange for bus money. Volunteers were paid very little, so most stayed on the kibbutz, and drank the kibbutz booze, which was very cheap, and got drunk. It's a great way to spend 6 months just screwing young people, because there is very little else to do.
A "Moshav" or "settlement" was designed along similar ideas as the kibbutz, but it was made for people who wanted a bit more materialism and independence in their life. You are entitled to your own property, and money. Houses can be different. Volunteers are paid a fair wage, but they have to work much harder. It still has a communal feel, but more of a pioneer settlement, rather than a commune.
It's worth spending some time on each, because they are experiments in Communist communities (Kibbutzim) and Socialist communities (Moshavim), and you can see the kinds of benefits and problems with each. Israel itself is a good experiment in ideology, because the leaders of Israel at the time of its independence were the Mapam, the Communist Party, but the Jews who came to Israel were mainly coming from Capitalist countries, like America and the UK, and the culture has become an unusual brand of socialism. It's a good way to see the pros and cons of these types of ideologies.
One nice thing was that even the last time I was there, in 2003, you could still get on a bus by the back doors, pass your money to the bus driver by passing it along, and have your ticket passed back with the right change. It was common for you to be on good terms with all your neighbours. You had the Sun every day, and people would go outside and play soccer or basketball. Even in the 80s, there were very few obese people, and most boys and girls were extremely attractive. Dating was easy, most girls got a proper boyfriend and most guys got a very attractive wife. So even with terrorism, it is still a great place to live. | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:02:31 PM | I can't say that many Canadians are worried about the Mexicanization of Atlantic Canada. I lived there for a couple of years recently, and beyond a few low quality taco joints, I couldn't see any evidence to support this alarming allegation.
As for the NAFTA superhighway, the United States is undermining NAFTA with constant challenges, harassing Canadian companies operating in the United States and piling on border controls to choke off trade and travel. If the openly protectionist Democrats are elected, even more obstacles will be put in place at the border. The threat of a NAFTA superhighway is long past. | |
|
| As Goes Mexico, so Goes the US and Canada
Posted: 2/23/2008 6:09:30 AM | NAFTA was never workable in the first place.
Mexico was always the 'weak man" in the partnership and there was never any way that US businesses or labor groups were going to subordinate their interests to any perceived "greater good."
NAFTA looked good on paper and it made Clinton feel like he'd done something....but it's been a largely expansive, and expensive, failure. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
