Sick Western Ideology: Money Is All That Counts!

[Guest gurmat]

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj93/harman.htm

CHRIS HARMAN

The US is in the early stages of a recession which could be as deep and intractable as any since the Second World War, with serious consequences for the rest of the world.

So wrote the dissident mainstream economist Wynne Godley in October.1 Godley was one of the few economists predicting recession back in the giddy heights of the US stock exchange boom two years ago. But the forebodings are shared by many of a more conventional aspect. As Godley notes, 'Everyone agrees that the US now is in recession.'

Among those who agree is The Economist. Back in January it insisted that all the US faced was what it called a 'slowdown' or a 'correction'.2 Now it says that 'there are good reasons to expect America's recession to be deeper and longer-lasting than most people expect... Indeed, it is possible that the world economy as a whole may be about to suffer its deepest downturn since the 1930s'.3

What has caused the turn around in opinion? And what is really happening to the world economy?

The crisis began well before the suicide hijack attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September. The week before the attack the Financial Times had felt able to carry a three-part article on the crisis in the telecommunications industry which said, 'A $1,000 billion bonfire of wealth has brought the world to the brink of recession'.4 The Economist was just as pessimistic:

The sharp slowdown in America has already caused a recession, maybe not at home, but in Mexico, Singapore, Taiwan and elsewhere. In more and more countries around the world output is now stalling, if not falling. Total world output probably fell in the second quarter for the first time in two decades. Many commentators argue that America can still avoid recession, so long as consumer spending does not collapse. But 1982 suggests otherwise: America then had its deepest recession since the 1930s, yet consumer spending continued to grow, offset by plunging investment and exports.5

[cul]

really? so, in your opinion, it is a 'western ideology' to care about wealth? I suppose the rest of us were all natural sants until the colonials came around.

As for your article, it is BS - the 2000 bear market was not linked to the credit bubble, it was more a bubble within a bubble. Ironically given the source of your article, it was a socialist experiment that created the current credit bubble. In terms of content your article is wholly lacking of substance, try again.

Edited February 18, 2010 by cul

[dalsingh101]

Gurmat, these days our lot aren't any less capitalistic than anyone else and actually worse than many.

[cul]

Why do you imply that to be capitalist is bad?

There is no inherent bias for or against any economic system within Sikhi, the only stipulation is to be unattached to maya.

[Matheen]

Cul, what is your definition of 'capitalistic'?

[dalsingh101]

Why do you imply that to be capitalist is bad?

There is no inherent bias for or against any economic system within Sikhi, the only stipulation is to be unattached to maya.

That Duni Chand story my mum told me when I was a toddler, seems to have a very strong anti capital hoarding message. But maybe I'm understanding it wrong? I hate to use comparisons like this but Sikhi is essentially more communist/socialistic in nature than capitalist.

Besides, later Guru jis could have very easily hoarded the vast wealth coming to them through donations, but they didn't. The preoccupied themselves with nurturing the social and spiritual reform of society as well as military competency to protect it. (That our lot mostly piss this all away is another matter).

[shaheediyan]

"I hate to use comparisons like this but Sikhi is essentially more communist/socialistic in nature than capitalist.

Besides, later Guru jis could have very easily hoarded the vast wealth coming to them through donations, but they didn't. The preoccupied themselves with nurturing the social and spiritual reform of society as well as military competency to protect it. (That our lot mostly piss this all away is another matter)."

Cul is right in my opinion, Sikhi does not advocate or criticise any system, which is why Sikhs live under every type of Government/rule under the system. Sikhi is not concerned with economic models or legal systems, it is a spiritual path.

Dalsingh, to try and use our Gurus as a comparison is ridiculous, they were Puran Avtaars, their role was to teach the path to Mukti.

Regarding donations, do you have any idea how rich and 'capitalistic' many of the Sikhs were? The Gurdwarai and Faujan didn't build themselves, Guru Sahiban had no issues taken donations off rich Sikhs, as long as their kamai was kirt.

The Nihang Dals, Nirmalai/Udasin/Seva Panthi Akarai may have been considered communist/socialistic in isolation due to their common goal of seva, but certainly not the Sikh Panth.

And don't forget that Sikhs are only required to give dasvandh (minimum), the idea behind this and the remaining 90% contemplated carefully.

[dalsingh101]

Sikhi is not concerned with economic models or legal systems, it is a spiritual path.

That is starkly contradicted by the miri piri concept in my opinion. But I do agree with the notion that excessive restriction in such matters can be detrimental.

I've always thought many aspects of rehits are touching on prototype legal style injunctions including punishments. Prem Sumarag is also big on jurisprudence, so at least some Sikhs were thinking about this in the past.

Just for the sake of discussion, if ever Sikhs were to achieve some form of sovereignity in future they would have to address issues of economics and legal systems. This is an interesting notion and I wonder if in future anyone will ever try to develop or explore these inline with Sikh thought? It is eye opening to contrast Islam with Sikhi in this respect. They seem to have developed very detailed and specific rules in terms of law and economy quite early on. I even noticed HSBC have 'Sharia compliant' banking deals these days...lol

Dalsingh, to try and use our Gurus as a comparison is ridiculous, they were Puran Avtaars, their role was to teach the path to Mukti.

Sure, but to say this doesn't have a societal/social element is false. Frequently they set up towns, they must have been conscious of the economics involved in such matters. It is an interesting area that hasn't been researched much to my knowledge.

Edited February 18, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Xylitol]

Avtars use expedient means imo, which means they use whatever is best given the circumstances. With the mukti always being the main goal. This flexibility allows for different systems to be used in different conditions.

If people are more intersted in learning what's really going on, check out Gerald Celente. He predicted the crash almost a year before it happened. He also has a track record of amazingly accurate predictions. http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/

Edited February 18, 2010 by Xylitol

[shaheediyan]

Towns were set up, but economic conditions/models were not created, trade when on as normal (for profit).

Rehits are specific (largely) to Singh Khalsa. They are a code of personal conduct, not a complete legal system, Sikhs follow (always have done) the law of the land they live in (unless it seriously abuses their freedom/rights).

Prem Sumarag as you have correctly cited, is the closest thing Sikhs in the early 19thC developed to a sort of legal system (with rehits combined). But generally, jurisprudence was left to elders at a local level during the Khalsa Raj.

As Sharia was developed after Muhammed Sahib lifetime and when Muslims found themselves as rulers of lands, so shall Sikh jurisprudence be developed based on the understanding of fairness and morality, rooted as much as possible on Sikhi (Ithihaas, Bani etc) if and when Sikhs ever get rule again.

[Dharma]

I also think that Indians are no better.

I saw a program recently which said that Brazil was the second most unequal country on earth - India is number one.

India is a nation where the sick and the weak sleep and die in the streets. The darwinian caste system is largely to blame. No wonder harijans are trying to convert to other faiths (for which they get slated as traitors).

All reformist dharma - Buddhist, Jainism and Sikhi - tried to move towards greater social responsibility.

One thing about Abrahamic religions is that they do have some social responsibility at their core. Even Islam has zakat. And I've read that socialism was gaining ground in the early 20th century in the Arab world. It probably appealed to the Muslim mind. Christians also have community spirit and altruism. Communism was an outgrowth of these religions and it has the same pro-people character.

Often I notice higher-caste Hindus railing against socialism as if it the cause of all the worlds ills. They scoff at countries like Canada and France (which is a cool thing to do in capitalist America). Imagine if they managed to introduce their societal system to a country like Canada! They would completely ruin it.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Dharma

[dalsingh101]

In philosophical debates they say communism is the result of Hegelian thought. Which itself has been described as the rationalisation of Christian thought.

I've often wondered what would become manifest if we stripped down Sikh philosophy and presented it to a wider nonSikh audience?

Just thoughts.

[cul]

Cul, what is your definition of 'capitalistic'?

I guess the pure meaning of the term is the investment of or in and trading of capital as a means of production. It has nothing to do with 'hoarding' that dalsingh confuses it with. Idiomatic use of the term refers mostly to free markets and the idea of the survival of the fittest, again, nothing to do with 'hoarding'. It doesn't have anything to do with money, really, given money is not a capital good and in contemporary economies is not even backed by physical 'wealth'.

The inequality in India and Brazil is more a function of their rapid growth as emerging economies, it happened everywhere and has a tendency to normalise over time as it has in the US and Europe. The pioneer industrialists and capitalists in these regions that have accumulated on paper this sort of wealth did so becuase of their ability to invest profitably - they are not keeping their millions under their collective mattresses.

Capitalism does not preclude social responsibility, indeed a capitalist approach to 3rd world poverty would result real growth and pverty reduction as opposed to the socialist handout system in place at the moment where the worst managed countries get the most money because they are the poorest. This sort of 'aid' makes mismanagement the most lucrative 'industry' in these countries.

Edited February 19, 2010 by cul

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

The thought that underlies the economic model of development, the one being promoted, does not give any value to so called spiritual ideals or dharmic ideals. It only values profit, everything is subordinated to the creation of 'wealth'. Wealth is defined as profit maximisation. In this system everything has a price, trees, rivers etc. are not sacred but equivalent to a certain amount of 'money'. All nature all sacred ideals are reduced to meaninglessness as they are equated with a price. The sense and aim of existence under this system is to secure material 'wealth' as this system does not recognise anything of value that cannot be equated with money. If you cannot buy it, it is of no importance. Likewise peoples' well being is not equated with spiritual and moral evolution but with the 'reduction of poverty' and other empty ideas that come under the collective title of social responsibility. Which is but a smokescreen of the economic system an 'appearence' of morality.

In reality there is no division between spiritual and worldly economic ideals, whilst we live in this world. An abstract wishy washy notion of spirituality or of Sikhi is an avoidance of the real issues and corrupt economic system we live under. While most Sikhs cosy up to the centres of power and talk rubbish about social responsibility, the world is going towards Hell because of the very system many Sikhs arselick.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Mekhane'ch Jannat

[dalsingh101]

Whatever you might say Cul, capitalism IS characterised by viewing all resources as saleable commodities and humans in terms of consumptive consumers. If Capitalism wishes to break into the 3rd world (which it does), it isn't for any ethical motive but a manifestation of the desire to accumulate more by accessing hordes of potential consumers. So they will try to turn these into consuming machines.

That being said, the argument that even this can have the effect of improving the material life standard of people who are currently living very impoverished lives is valid. How much have the spiritual systems of the world achieved in terms of the upliftment of the vast hordes of poor into a better life? We should consider the traditional Hindu dharma style spirituality where many of us come from, where people can achieve 'great' spiritual heights whilst being detached/oblivious to the misery under their very nose.

[cul]

What system is there to asslick? UK and Europe are socialist entities with Keynesian policies that presume expansion of consumption is the panacea to economic growth, same in the US albeit with less socialism.

You need to be responsible for your own principles and ideals and not expect an external system to uphold them for you, my favour for a free system with small government, minarchism if you will, stems from the premise that under such a system individuals will have thre freedom to evince their own principles no matter which dharm they subscribe to.

In reality there is no division between spiritual and worldly economic ideals

This contradicts the idea of miri/piri and on its own is meaningless - care to explain how we are supposed to implement a spiritual economic system?

Peoples' spiritual and moral evolution are a social issue not an economic one, the economic point of view is simply to raise their living standard to a point where they can participate in the economy and contribute to it as a whole. Whether these people decide to be a positive or negative influence or not is up to them - you seem to be labouring under the delusion that an external system of business can make people 'moral'.

I may be 'talking rubbish' but I live in a third world country where there is huge divide between rich and poor, it's easy to sit on your ass and claim benefits off the government then drag said fat ass online to make thinly disguised ad hominem arguments on an internet forum. Go live in a slum in asia or africa for a month then come tell me that poverty reduction is an empty idea.

If the Gurus wanted us to create a society without money in which everything was paid in kind they would have done it. Any government system is corrupt hence the idea that govt should kept as small as possible and people free to decide their own principles and values. A system that tries to impose 'spiritual wealth' on people with the likes of you in charge will aid kaljug more than any phony investor building a ponzi scheme.

Come back when you can articulate an argument that has more substance to it than arrogance and insult...and you lecture about spiritual and moral evolution lol

Edited February 19, 2010 by cul

[dalsingh101]

One thing 'DUMBASS' about capitalist practice is constant reliance on growth. Only capitalists would make $50 million profit in one year, and consider making $35 million in the next as a calamity!

Everything has to grow, grow like magic. Like there are no limits to consumption or ceilings! Plus only a fool will deny the impact that this approach has on natural resources, which are nachored something stupid.

Plus the approach does seem to have a dehumanising effect on people who are either consumers or people who make the capitalist wheel go round. But the wonder of the system is how it plugs in so directly to basic human motivations/desires to such an extent, making hordes of people seem almost powerless to resist the consumer bait. Clever stuff.

[cul]

'capitalism' is the practice of business in a relatively free economy where the factors of production (capital) are owned privately; so tell me, where does this imply a need for constant growth? If it were so then why are the most hardline free marketeers calling for an end to government support of a busted system and demanding that the economy be allowed to enter recession with privately accountable debt which is the only way out of this mess as opposed to a debt transfer from the private to public sector as as happened which is a socialist policy move NOT a capitalist move that has bailed out corrupt institutions and placed the debt burden on taxpayers' shoulders. A 'capitalist' response would have been to allow the private institutions to go under and suffer for their greed resulting in destruction of old institutions and paving the way for new ones with, one would hope, better regulation.

Government interference to (often illegaly) dampen regulation and guarantee debts of private institutions that just happen to be the biggest source of money for their political movements is a sign of a totalitarian regime most akin to left wing poltiics and economics and is anathema to the freedom required to run a fair economy.

I'm done with this argument until you educate yourself and quit with the knee jerk marketsareevil™ reactions. The current western economy is SOCIALIST and is running a massive experiment in KEYNESIAN POLICY which is where the constant growth fueled by consumption requirement comes in NOT from neo-classical policy. Until you can understand this you have no basis for your argument.

Edited February 19, 2010 by cul

[dalsingh101]

'capitalism' is the practice of business in a relatively free economy where the factors of production (capital) are owned privately; so tell me, where does this imply a need for constant growth?

You can go all text book like you have above but the fact remains that idiots have been using the 'magic growth' model for a while now.

If it were so then why are the most hardline free marketeers calling for an end to government support of a busted system and demanding that the economy be allowed to enter recession with privately accountable debt which is the only way out of this mess as opposed to a debt transfer from the private to public sector as as happened which is a socialist policy move NOT a capitalist move that has bailed out corrupt institutions and placed the debt burden on taxpayers' shoulders.

How is this socialist? That is so twisted. So the common grunt ends up paying for the mistakes of the banking oligarchy. Who in turn, by and large, continue to reward themselves with massive bonuses despite abject failure. bankers are the new elites.

A 'capitalist' response would have been to allow the private institutions to go under and suffer for their greed resulting in destruction of old institutions and paving the way for new ones with, one would hope, better regulation.

If you think the 'old boys network' would let itself fall so easily you must live in cloud cuckoo land. Their whole stance is one to accumulate. They messed up trying to wring everyone for all they are worth and trying to hide it amongst safer investments.

Besides the financial institutes themselves developed from speculating of cargoes in imperialistic times. This is included slavery and ill gotton gains from colonised/conquered territory. So historically this thing was all about money making without a glance towards ethics/morals anyway. It's only outside influences that reign them in (i.e. changes in law about slavery).

Government interference to (often illegaly) dampen regulation and guarantee debts of private institutions that just happen to be the biggest source of money for their political movements is a sign of a totalitarian regime most akin to left wing poltiics and economics and is anathema to the freedom required to run a fair economy.

Well, we've had soft touch regulation for a while, look where it got us. Fair economy, who in the banking sector gives a toss about that?

I'm done with this argument until you educate yourself and quit with the knee jerk marketsareevil reactions. The current western economy is SOCIALIST and is running a massive experiment in KEYNESIAN POLICY which is where the constant growth fueled by consumption requirement comes in NOT from neo-classical policy. Until you can understand this you have no basis for your argument.

Your understanding of socialism says it all if you think the current western banking system is reflecting this. In the end it IS a reflection of the egoist, self centred, arrogant f**kers that dominate the industry, nowt else. You can stop making excuses for them. I take it you are employed in the sector.

Edited February 19, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Xylitol]

The transferring of corporate control from private hands to the government is actually fascism, not socialism. This is Mussolini's definition of fascism, that the govt. control business. The US is moving towards Fascism.

-

You guys may be interested in microcredit lending. These organisations lend small amounts to groups of people who have no collateral and otherwise could not afford loans. One of these persons, with the other group members as guarantors of the loan, builds of a business. This allows them to climb out of poverty and build up the local economy. The loan is then paid back. These models offer greater hope for 3rd world poverty than any handout type model. Kiva and the Grameen Bank are two well known microcredit institutions.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Xylitol

[cul]

microcredit is awesome. It is a great example of how a market approach to a problem i.e. liquidity within poor households can create a sustainable solution as opposed to socialist handouts which create only the incentive to figure out how to get more handouts.

People have something at stake - their reputations in the local community (which is how the loans are enforced); they are effectively trading their standing in the community in exchange for some money to start up a business - a market solution.

I meant socialist in the sense that private institutions are being subsidised by the government, in teh US not much control has been given to the government, unlike in the UK.

You can go all text book like you have above but the fact remains that idiots have been using the 'magic growth' model for a while now.

did I deny this? the point that you have so staggeringly managed to avoid is that the system is keynesian/socialist NOT classical.

Economic policy is made by economists and affects your daily life, if you have a problem with accurate and correct definition of terms then rid yourself of ignorance if you wish to debate. The rest of the world isn't here to pander to your self invented definitions of economic terms.

How is this socialist? That is so twisted. So the common grunt ends up paying for the mistakes of the banking oligarchy. Who in turn, by and large, continue to reward themselves with massive bonuses despite abject failure. bankers are the new elites.

Who said that it was in favour of the common man? Tax funded government subsidies for a failed industry is socialism. period.

Also, this crisis has its roots in excessively cheap credit, actively pushed on the market by the clinton administration to give low income households access to credit - A SOCIALIST POLICY with KEYNESIAN justification ie the increase of consumption. Everything else with AIG and the ratings agencies, investment banks and pension funds etc is a knock on effect.

Well, we've had soft touch regulation for a while, look where it got us. Fair economy, who in the banking sector gives a toss about that?

where did i say anything about 'soft touch' regulation? this whole mess is rooted in deregulation by the clinton govt in '99 to allow banks to make subprime loans and to allow investment banks to engage in proprietary trading creating a HUGE systemic risk.

...was all about money making without a glance towards ethics/morals anyway...

Of course it's about money, the point that I have made REPEATEDLY is that AS SIKHS we are meant to participate but be DETACHED, that NO external system can enforce morality, that it has to come from within an individual. Maybe you should understand the content of my posts before making a fool of yourself.

Your understanding of socialism says it all if you think the current western banking system is reflecting this. In the end it IS a reflection of the egoist, self centred, arrogant f**kers that dominate the industry, nowt else. You can stop making excuses for them. I take it you are employed in the sector.

if you think that my approval of the flushing out of the financial sector by advocating bankruptcy is an excuse for them you are clinically retarded. my comments are on western economics, which are left wing ie socialist; western monetary policy is keynesian NOT classical/capitalist.

Why isn't the govt allowing this to happen? because the short term employment and output effects would be brutal, so instead they indebt us up the wazoo and hope to hell the system doesn't implode in our lifetime. There is no reset button on a credit bubble-financed keynesian economy; the ONLY way out is a clean start, but this would be too 'painful' for the people so instead we subsidise and tax - A SOCIALIST REACTION.

Edited February 19, 2010 by cul

[dalsingh101]

Cul

So now poor people and socialism is to blame for this mess! Hell no!!

This is squarely the fault of obnoxious and arrogant practices of people in the banking sector (I've met a few over the years, my brother works with them to this day). These consist mainly (if not solely) of white privileged jerks who think they can do no wrong (plus maybe a few coconuts who follow their philosophy).

Bailing them out like they have been done is NOT down to socialism but the actions of whites scared of the fall of their financial empires. If that happened, the west would probably not survive it. Who knows maybe they wont?

If any real form of socialism was involved - the money would be getting distributed towards Johnny Average not "Merchant Bankers" (I use quoted phrase in both the normal sense as well as the cockney rhyming slang version!).

What a bunch of phudhus, now the little interest Joe/Joanne Blogs would earn on his/her hard earned savings is complete shite.

Blame models all you want. This was the result of the actions of people with horrible mindsets in the banking sector.

[Guest gurmat]

What a bunch of phudhus, now the little interest Joe/Joanne Blogs would earn on his/her hard earned savings is complete shite.

Many Sikhs don't even want to return to India.

The Christian missionaries also find that Sikhs have become a very easy target in Punjab. Affluent Punjabi parents are sending their children to these Christian convent schools for a better education. However, hand in hand with better education is exposaure to the missionary zeal of the Christians preaching Christianity and attempting to convert Punjabis into Christians. The poorer or more illiterate Punjabis are lured to convert to Christianity through promises of the rewards of financial incentives, their children being offered education and hope of a better future by placing faith in Jesus.

[dalsingh101]

Many Sikhs don't even want to return to India.

The Christian missionaries also find that Sikhs have become a very easy target in Punjab. Affluent Punjabi parents are sending their children to these Christian convent schools for a better education. However, hand in hand with better education is exposaure to the missionary zeal of the Christians preaching Christianity and attempting to convert Punjabis into Christians. The poorer or more illiterate Punjabis are lured to convert to Christianity through promises of the rewards of financial incentives, their children being offered education and hope of a better future by placing faith in Jesus.

All human systems that work, usually do so because they either plug directly into some core needs of a human or they are thrown on them and enforced rigorously.

What we have to understand is that we are no longer under direct assault militarily these days but we are confronted theologically and socio-economically. Problem with the panth these days is that we can't even provide basic level support for the vulnerable amongst us, let alone outside. Most of us are guilty of making this the truth (including and especially me). But 'our' institutes play the biggest role in this.

People (1) want to feel warmth and support from their community, (2) they want to believe in their souls redemption, (3) they want to prosper economically.

We haven't created any homegrown system for this and so the people run around like headless chickens jumping into other systems (be they economic or religious) to improve their lot. What can we say? Put food infront of a hungry dog and they will fall on it in a second.

Edited February 20, 2010 by dalsingh101

[cul]

Cul

So now poor people and socialism is to blame for this mess! Hell no!!

You're saying that because you cannot accept something it cannot be true?

Deregulation of the markets to push mortgage agencies to make sub prime loans is a fact not an opinion.

THe chain of events that have led to the current crisis is documented, it is not opinion.

This is squarely the fault of obnoxious and arrogant practices of people in the banking sector (I've met a few over the years, my brother works with them to this day). These consist mainly (if not solely) of white privileged jerks who think they can do no wrong (plus maybe a few coconuts who follow their philosophy).

Bailing them out like they have been done is NOT down to socialism but the actions of whites scared of the fall of their financial empires. If that happened, the west would probably not survive it. Who knows maybe they wont?

You can keep your racial bias BS to yourself. If you honestly think that the bailout was a result of a 'white power' sentiment then you are, as I said, clinically retarded. This is a GLOBAL recession - go tell Japan your retarded racist theory of finance.

If any real form of socialism was involved - the money would be getting distributed towards Johnny Average not "Merchant Bankers" (I use quoted phrase in both the normal sense as well as the cockney rhyming slang version!).

A bunch of ignorant jobless rednecks that have leveraged their homes to the hilt via multiple remortgages now have free housing courtesy of the US taxpayer who are now paying off their delinquent debt. It doesn't get any more socialsit.

What a bunch of phudhus, now the little interest Joe/Joanne Blogs would earn on his/her hard earned savings is complete shite.

Blame models all you want. This was the result of the actions of people with horrible mindsets in the banking sector.

The horrible mindset theory eh, brace yourself for the Nobel.

Let me explain this in terms a 5 yr old should understand. There was a line drawn within which banks were allowed to play. In 1999 that line was expanded and they were given more freedom, excessive freedom as is evident. In 2008 everyone realised that, holy crap, we all owe a hell of a lot more money than we are earning and the bottom fell out of the market as they liquidated equity in order to stay afloat. The government responded by saying 'it's ok', we'll buy your bad debt, the taxpayer will fund this bad debt, which is almost entirely composed of delinquent mortgages, and smudged over the line in places that were convenient, forced MORE deregulation of the accounting standards so that losses on bad loans don't need to be reported et voila we magically have profits reported again.

Left leaning economic policy is a fact not a theory. Keynesian monetary policy is a fact not an abstract theory. If you don't understand what these things are then you are not in a position to discuss the economy, as evidenced by your arguments based solely on value judgements as opposed to any udnerstanding of economics at any level. I care only for truth, you can take your blind racist pro socialist dogma, put it in your asscrack and smoke it.