Conspiracy Theories (being as flexible as they are) are totally compatible with the socialist mindset. After all, to understand Marxism, you must divide society into the small evil elite class who rule over the poor masses. Most conspiracy theories tend to do the same: a small number of powerful people do the conspiracies. In many instances, as in countries in Latin America today, the need to ?uncover the truth? goes hand in hand with ?saving the masses from the bourgeoisie?.
For some reason conspiracy theories take over people?s minds enabling them ignore facts and even their degrees to get the kick out of ?uncovering the truth? (I think) no matter how ridiculous it is. NALs shows the typical signs: exaggeration, distorting facts, ignoring evidence and outright lie. One thing is for sure, logic doesn?t come into play in these people?s minds. I would go as far as saying it is a psychological condition. I've felt that this mentality would be VERY dangerous if it takes over Dominicans? minds at this critical point in our history. So I?ve felt responsible for trying to help clarify logic from empty rhetoric, and this might explain why I had gotten so heated before.
It was about time NALs pulled the ?you are new on this forum so you don?t know what you?re talking about!? again. Lulumba and rtejeda have said similar ridiculous statements as NALs, yet they didn?t receive the ?wow NALs what a great post! You are so insightful?. Is it because they were ?newbies??
Following the DR1 tradition, in response to his post, I will first attack NALs character. However, unlike many DR1-ers, I will not stop there and ignore his arguments or call him a ?newbie?. I will go for his irresponsible arguments.
(In response to his questions, I am pending graduation from NYU, business admin., close enough to economics [taken several advanced courses]. No, no Phd, but am actually planning on going into an economics related masters, for now I?m just an aficionado. I consider myself an economist at heart.)
Where did NALs go wrong?
1) ?Many people seem to not realize or not want to realize that the sole purpose of the existence of countries is to accumulate wealth into a few hands and the sole purpose of culture, religion, nationalism, law enforcing entities, the military, etc is to ensure that the masses don't see what's really going on. Thus, the masses will support their country, not knowing that by supporting their country they are supporting the ruling class who is not bound to such dillusional ways of thinking such as diying for the nation, flag waving, so on and so forth!? (post)
Before this ridiculous statement (typical conspiracy theorist), he had given us a peek into his mind with the question:
?Well can we really call them countries?? hinting at his idea that developing countries aren?t really sovereign.
I personally found that the term ?country? was too vague. But since he said it was ?Eurocentric? and citing a book describing recent politics I assumed that by ?country? he was referring to the Nation State model. The most comprehensive work done about this, as I said before, was Benedict Anderson?s who approaches its roots from a cultural/political perspective. NALs refers to the cultural, not political, since several of the elements mentioned, such as flags, religion and language are CULTURAL (they ARE a country?s culture). Republicanism came out of this. If anybody could recall the first hurdles among the new Republics of Latin America in the 19th century was changing the mentality from being elitist (where white criollos were the only citizens who ruled over the non-citizen Indian and blacks) to uniting all the people in the country under one banner, your country. Whether successful or not, is besides the point; the system shouldn?t be criticized because of the failure of those who put it in practice. The fact is that the creation of ?countries? pushed for inclusion rather than marginalization undermines his whole argument. I tried explaining it in terms of socialism, but still NALs has not responded to my counterargument and, though he claims it, has failed to explain how the creation of ?countries? is elitist.
2) The World Bank and the IMF, ?ARE THE SAME THING!? (post)
He changes his mind to, they are not the same thing but ?World Bank and IMF are each 51% owned by the US Treasury.? (post)
He then changes his mind again after reviewing facts to ?"The United States is the largest single shareholder, with 16.41 percent of the votes??(post)
If NALs were in a court of law his credibility would be shattered, anything he would say after this would be taken as doubtful. Fortunately we?re just in a forum.
What was said afterwards was even more ridiculous:
?In fact, the IMF was created to ensure the repayment of the debt Third World countries owed to banking institutions such as JP Morgan.? (post)
Both the IMF and World Bank were created during the infamous Bretton Woods conference. I won?t even go into the purpose or goals of the conference, but just think why would leaders from around the world meet up towards the end of WW2 to make sure debts are repaid to a private company such as JP Morgan?
(By this point, I?m thinking ?this guy is a complete idiot?)
3) The question of the year: is NALs really an economist?
I haven?t met the guy, I can?t say if he really does have a degree. One thing I CAN say is that no matter how many degrees he has, he is not a true economist at heart.
The first notice I get from him being an economist is:
?Bilijou, I'm an economist and may I recommend to you to take 3rd World Politics course?? (post)
First thing to observe is how a person introduces himself as an economist and cites a political science work in the same sentence. (oh, and I have taken many 3rd World politics courses not limited to Latin America) Most economists tend to be liberals (I actually haven?t met ONE that isn?t).
I ask myself, what are NALs sources? Ah, I got a clue, Connecticut universities?
?It's obvious that what you are claiming, for the most part, is NOT what is being tought in American universities?([URL="http://www.dr1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=424936&postcount=99"]post[/URL])
You?re right, this is NOT what is being taught in American universities. Let me throw in some facts. According to several studies made, Intelligence (IQ) and Education are the major determinants of whether you think like an economist, in the US population. (notice how thinking like an economist is equated with being pro-free trade/liberals in these studies) Despite this FACT, there is a tendency for those that who ARE intelligent and educated AND leftists to work or hang around universities. ( source) Anybody in the academic realm knows this. Pay someone to just think without regard for "competition" or "survival" does this to you. You don?t have to look far, remember the left in la UASD? And they are your sources?
In my university if you ask ANY historian or sociologist or political scientist, they will ALWAYS lean left (ex hippies and communists), against free trade, unlike an economist. None of their answers give a solution to a fact of life: we need to compete to survive (as someone mentioned before with the phrase survival of the fittest). I don?t think these people are stupid, I actually have a lot of respect for most of them. I just think that they focus only on human suffering while ignoring economics, creating utopian inefficient systems. A true economist can never ignore this fact.
?Economic theory is great and all (after all, I am an Economist, get that in your head!) but there is one tiny flaw in Economic theory and that is that it takes absolutely NO ACCOUNT FOR SOCIAL CONDITIONS!?(post)
If NALs were an economist at heart, yes he should take social conditions into account but should never ignore economics. From my understanding NALs is for protectionism (assuming from what he said about Japan). In a past thread, NALs and I were discussing mercantilism. (post) Back then I realized he wasn?t an economist since, though being completely against mercantilism, he didn?t explain the theory from an economics point of view but rather a political approach. If NALs were truly an economist, he would see little difference between protectionism and mercantilism. He would believe in comparative advantage and understand that everybody benefits from trade, very much unlike the ?zero sum? mercantilist view that only one side wins. He would see that the protectionism in mercantilism led to inefficiency and corruption. He would know that more competition leads to innovation which generates more wealth.
Instead of explaining the faults in economic theory (as an economist should), he AGAIN approaches it from a political view, the BOTTOM UP and TOP DOWN theory:
?Examples of top down democracies:
Dominican Republic, Iraq (it's in the process), Egypt, Philipines.
Examples of bottom up democracies:
Chile, Spain, Japan, Brazil (although it ended prematurely, but southern Brazil benefited immensely from this), China (it's in the process with its citizens in its wealthiest region being the most active in desiring more democracy, not so in more backward areas of China).
Of course there are more, but I am hoping readers of this thread would look at the histories of those countries and see how they are doing now economically and democratically. The coincidences are more than such!? (post)
His definition of bottom up: ?Democracy from the bottom up surges from the will of the people.? (post)
My question is when was Chile, Spain and Brazil Bottom-Up? During Pinochet, Franco and Vargas? authoritarian regimes? Are they now?
When was economic development achieved? During the bottom up governments? These countries have gone through so many phases that by simplifying it into ?bottom up? and ?top down? would be retarded for any economist. In some, most economic development was achieved during bottom-up and in some it was top-down, there is no coincidence.
Also, notice the size of the internal markets in these countries. If you were to open a business in DR, how big can it grow when you can only market to a maximum of 9 million people (out of which half are poor and can?t buy your product)? Is that the way to wealth?
Now, I will agree the way Leonel (as Mexico and many other countries that have signed FTA?s) is going about it is completely wrong. I am guessing he, as many, is following the ?East Asian Tiger? export driven economic models. The problem is that these countries had always been focused on education even before they applied the strategy. They also had high savings for reinvestment. The failure of many Latin American leaders to see this (and other factors as corruption and obstacles to operating a business), doesn?t mean that we should discard Free Trade in general. It would be irresponsible. This forum is for the ?exchange of ideas?, but these ideas should be based on facts. The difference between NALs and me is that I back everything up with facts, he backs it up with ideas from ?people he has discussed it with?.
As I had suspected, it was only a matter of time before the ?anti-free trade? conspiracy theorists of South America showed interest in DR. Yesterday I read how known ?anti-free trade? organizations, the International Socialist organization and COPPPAL, decided to ?mediate? disputes between members of the Dominican party of the masses, PRD. And they are not the only ones. Many organizations and groups are targeting the poor with these conspiracy theories. It is only a matter of time before we get an idiot like Chavez in DR.
I?m done with this forum.
For some reason conspiracy theories take over people?s minds enabling them ignore facts and even their degrees to get the kick out of ?uncovering the truth? (I think) no matter how ridiculous it is. NALs shows the typical signs: exaggeration, distorting facts, ignoring evidence and outright lie. One thing is for sure, logic doesn?t come into play in these people?s minds. I would go as far as saying it is a psychological condition. I've felt that this mentality would be VERY dangerous if it takes over Dominicans? minds at this critical point in our history. So I?ve felt responsible for trying to help clarify logic from empty rhetoric, and this might explain why I had gotten so heated before.
It was about time NALs pulled the ?you are new on this forum so you don?t know what you?re talking about!? again. Lulumba and rtejeda have said similar ridiculous statements as NALs, yet they didn?t receive the ?wow NALs what a great post! You are so insightful?. Is it because they were ?newbies??
Following the DR1 tradition, in response to his post, I will first attack NALs character. However, unlike many DR1-ers, I will not stop there and ignore his arguments or call him a ?newbie?. I will go for his irresponsible arguments.
(In response to his questions, I am pending graduation from NYU, business admin., close enough to economics [taken several advanced courses]. No, no Phd, but am actually planning on going into an economics related masters, for now I?m just an aficionado. I consider myself an economist at heart.)
Where did NALs go wrong?
1) ?Many people seem to not realize or not want to realize that the sole purpose of the existence of countries is to accumulate wealth into a few hands and the sole purpose of culture, religion, nationalism, law enforcing entities, the military, etc is to ensure that the masses don't see what's really going on. Thus, the masses will support their country, not knowing that by supporting their country they are supporting the ruling class who is not bound to such dillusional ways of thinking such as diying for the nation, flag waving, so on and so forth!? (post)
Before this ridiculous statement (typical conspiracy theorist), he had given us a peek into his mind with the question:
?Well can we really call them countries?? hinting at his idea that developing countries aren?t really sovereign.
I personally found that the term ?country? was too vague. But since he said it was ?Eurocentric? and citing a book describing recent politics I assumed that by ?country? he was referring to the Nation State model. The most comprehensive work done about this, as I said before, was Benedict Anderson?s who approaches its roots from a cultural/political perspective. NALs refers to the cultural, not political, since several of the elements mentioned, such as flags, religion and language are CULTURAL (they ARE a country?s culture). Republicanism came out of this. If anybody could recall the first hurdles among the new Republics of Latin America in the 19th century was changing the mentality from being elitist (where white criollos were the only citizens who ruled over the non-citizen Indian and blacks) to uniting all the people in the country under one banner, your country. Whether successful or not, is besides the point; the system shouldn?t be criticized because of the failure of those who put it in practice. The fact is that the creation of ?countries? pushed for inclusion rather than marginalization undermines his whole argument. I tried explaining it in terms of socialism, but still NALs has not responded to my counterargument and, though he claims it, has failed to explain how the creation of ?countries? is elitist.
2) The World Bank and the IMF, ?ARE THE SAME THING!? (post)
He changes his mind to, they are not the same thing but ?World Bank and IMF are each 51% owned by the US Treasury.? (post)
He then changes his mind again after reviewing facts to ?"The United States is the largest single shareholder, with 16.41 percent of the votes??(post)
If NALs were in a court of law his credibility would be shattered, anything he would say after this would be taken as doubtful. Fortunately we?re just in a forum.
What was said afterwards was even more ridiculous:
?In fact, the IMF was created to ensure the repayment of the debt Third World countries owed to banking institutions such as JP Morgan.? (post)
Both the IMF and World Bank were created during the infamous Bretton Woods conference. I won?t even go into the purpose or goals of the conference, but just think why would leaders from around the world meet up towards the end of WW2 to make sure debts are repaid to a private company such as JP Morgan?
(By this point, I?m thinking ?this guy is a complete idiot?)
3) The question of the year: is NALs really an economist?
I haven?t met the guy, I can?t say if he really does have a degree. One thing I CAN say is that no matter how many degrees he has, he is not a true economist at heart.
The first notice I get from him being an economist is:
?Bilijou, I'm an economist and may I recommend to you to take 3rd World Politics course?? (post)
First thing to observe is how a person introduces himself as an economist and cites a political science work in the same sentence. (oh, and I have taken many 3rd World politics courses not limited to Latin America) Most economists tend to be liberals (I actually haven?t met ONE that isn?t).
I ask myself, what are NALs sources? Ah, I got a clue, Connecticut universities?
?It's obvious that what you are claiming, for the most part, is NOT what is being tought in American universities?([URL="http://www.dr1.com/forums/showpost.php?p=424936&postcount=99"]post[/URL])
You?re right, this is NOT what is being taught in American universities. Let me throw in some facts. According to several studies made, Intelligence (IQ) and Education are the major determinants of whether you think like an economist, in the US population. (notice how thinking like an economist is equated with being pro-free trade/liberals in these studies) Despite this FACT, there is a tendency for those that who ARE intelligent and educated AND leftists to work or hang around universities. ( source) Anybody in the academic realm knows this. Pay someone to just think without regard for "competition" or "survival" does this to you. You don?t have to look far, remember the left in la UASD? And they are your sources?
In my university if you ask ANY historian or sociologist or political scientist, they will ALWAYS lean left (ex hippies and communists), against free trade, unlike an economist. None of their answers give a solution to a fact of life: we need to compete to survive (as someone mentioned before with the phrase survival of the fittest). I don?t think these people are stupid, I actually have a lot of respect for most of them. I just think that they focus only on human suffering while ignoring economics, creating utopian inefficient systems. A true economist can never ignore this fact.
?Economic theory is great and all (after all, I am an Economist, get that in your head!) but there is one tiny flaw in Economic theory and that is that it takes absolutely NO ACCOUNT FOR SOCIAL CONDITIONS!?(post)
If NALs were an economist at heart, yes he should take social conditions into account but should never ignore economics. From my understanding NALs is for protectionism (assuming from what he said about Japan). In a past thread, NALs and I were discussing mercantilism. (post) Back then I realized he wasn?t an economist since, though being completely against mercantilism, he didn?t explain the theory from an economics point of view but rather a political approach. If NALs were truly an economist, he would see little difference between protectionism and mercantilism. He would believe in comparative advantage and understand that everybody benefits from trade, very much unlike the ?zero sum? mercantilist view that only one side wins. He would see that the protectionism in mercantilism led to inefficiency and corruption. He would know that more competition leads to innovation which generates more wealth.
Instead of explaining the faults in economic theory (as an economist should), he AGAIN approaches it from a political view, the BOTTOM UP and TOP DOWN theory:
?Examples of top down democracies:
Dominican Republic, Iraq (it's in the process), Egypt, Philipines.
Examples of bottom up democracies:
Chile, Spain, Japan, Brazil (although it ended prematurely, but southern Brazil benefited immensely from this), China (it's in the process with its citizens in its wealthiest region being the most active in desiring more democracy, not so in more backward areas of China).
Of course there are more, but I am hoping readers of this thread would look at the histories of those countries and see how they are doing now economically and democratically. The coincidences are more than such!? (post)
His definition of bottom up: ?Democracy from the bottom up surges from the will of the people.? (post)
My question is when was Chile, Spain and Brazil Bottom-Up? During Pinochet, Franco and Vargas? authoritarian regimes? Are they now?
When was economic development achieved? During the bottom up governments? These countries have gone through so many phases that by simplifying it into ?bottom up? and ?top down? would be retarded for any economist. In some, most economic development was achieved during bottom-up and in some it was top-down, there is no coincidence.
Also, notice the size of the internal markets in these countries. If you were to open a business in DR, how big can it grow when you can only market to a maximum of 9 million people (out of which half are poor and can?t buy your product)? Is that the way to wealth?
Now, I will agree the way Leonel (as Mexico and many other countries that have signed FTA?s) is going about it is completely wrong. I am guessing he, as many, is following the ?East Asian Tiger? export driven economic models. The problem is that these countries had always been focused on education even before they applied the strategy. They also had high savings for reinvestment. The failure of many Latin American leaders to see this (and other factors as corruption and obstacles to operating a business), doesn?t mean that we should discard Free Trade in general. It would be irresponsible. This forum is for the ?exchange of ideas?, but these ideas should be based on facts. The difference between NALs and me is that I back everything up with facts, he backs it up with ideas from ?people he has discussed it with?.
As I had suspected, it was only a matter of time before the ?anti-free trade? conspiracy theorists of South America showed interest in DR. Yesterday I read how known ?anti-free trade? organizations, the International Socialist organization and COPPPAL, decided to ?mediate? disputes between members of the Dominican party of the masses, PRD. And they are not the only ones. Many organizations and groups are targeting the poor with these conspiracy theories. It is only a matter of time before we get an idiot like Chavez in DR.
I?m done with this forum.