Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I think it's very hard to unravel what goes on at the end of the year. I think a bigger drag on the economy is all the year-end reporting that has to get done. Reports, reports, reports. It pretty much kills the last six weeks or so of the year.

.

Sarbannes-Oxley, what a disasterous waste of resources. But at least they were able to convict that evil Scrushy under it. that makes all bureaucratic inefficiency it has caused worthwhile.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Who are you worried about having to fight for the oil? The French? The Japanese?

Can't we work out some sort of protection scheme to get kickbacks from the producers, I mean the UN is out of the business now. My Uncle Nicola always had a nice car and a big house working that racket.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
By the way - the reasons for us getting into the war are no longer relevant. Either we (And the Iraqis) are better of or worse off. The rest is just political blather.

Let me ask you and Club a serious question that may not sound serious.

It is starting to look like women in the new Iraq will have fewer rights than men in the new Iraq. I won't praise Hussein's rule, but under the Ba'athists, Iraq was a secular state and somewhat modeled itself on the Soviet Union. Women and men were treated equally ("equally badly" I hear, and I don't disagree), and women were able to wear what they wanted, drive, etc. -- all unusual in an Arab country.

When RT pointed out that women were losing rights under the draft Iraqi constitution, Club stated that they were better off with Hussein gone, and his unstated point was that the loss of rights was not a big enough deal for the US to interfere with.

Ok, here's the question -- if the draft constitution nationalized private property would you still be so blase? Or if it instituted a non-free market economic system?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Actually, so will the producing nations. They're gonna be so fucking impressed with our prestige and credibility and feardom and shit, that they're gonna LOWER the price of the oil they sell us, just to keep us happy enough to decide not to invade their leetel country. For today, anyway.

Fuckin' A, Gatti. Word.

Gas went up about 20 cents a gallon around here in the last 10 days. That's a pretty big tax increase, but I don't hear anyone from the Heritage Foundation complaining about it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Let me ask you and Club a serious question that may not sound serious.

It is starting to look like women in the new Iraq will have less rights than men in the new Iraq. I won't praise Hussein's rule, but under the Ba'athists, Iraq was a secular state and somewhat modeled itself on the Soviet Union. Women and men were treated equally ("equally badly" I hear, and I don't disagree), and women were able to wear what they wanted, drive, etc. -- all unusual in an Arab country.

When RT pointed out that women were losing rights under the draft Iraqi constitution, Club stated that they were better off with Hussein gone, and his unstated point was that the loss of rights was not a big enough deal for the US to interfere with.

Ok, here's the question -- if the draft constitution nationalized private property would you still be so blase? Or if it instituted a non-free market economic system?

I agree with Club's statement so I will respond.

In a non-ideal world, state-controlled oppression of the economic system is a recipe for having few real rights with no avenue for the evolution of rights. The state owns you, regardless of gender.

OTOH, a free market economy will lend itself to an evolutionary process where, de jure or de facto, woman will have the opportunity to gain significant, if not equal, rights.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I agree with Club's statement so I will respond.

In a non-ideal world, state-controlled oppression of the economic system is a recipe for having few real rights with no avenue for the evolution of rights. The state owns you, regardless of gender.

OTOH, a free market economy will lend itself to an evolutionary process where, de jure or de facto, woman will have the opportunity to gain significant, if not equal, rights.

So rights for half the population are only of secondary value?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I agree with Club's statement so I will respond.

In a non-ideal world, state-controlled oppression of the economic system is a recipe for having few real rights with no avenue for the evolution of rights. The state owns you, regardless of gender.

OTOH, a free market economy will lend itself to an evolutionary process where, de jure or de facto, woman will have the opportunity to gain significant, if not equal, rights.

So the answer would be no, then? More blase about sex inequalities than you would be about nationalized property?

Does the level of state control of the economy matter? If you had to choose between equal rights of men and women to vote and serve in government, etc. or a system similar to a 1976 (ie pre-Maggie) era Great Britain -- nationalized health, transport, and energy sectiors (plus some attractive yet idiosyncratically engineered cars from British Leyland), which would you choose?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob


Ok, here's the question -- if the draft constitution nationalized private property would you still be so blase? Or if it instituted a non-free market economic system?

No I would not. That would be a disaster because then the economy would not grow and Iraq would stay unstable.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
So rights for half the population are only of secondary value?

the concept of "in a non-ideal world" predicates the whole answer.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by nononono
So rights for half the population are only of secondary value?

No but those rights won't be of much use in an impovershed nation. Any country that has nationalized industry has turned into a hell hole. Then rights won't really matter will they? In addition, when all the industry is nationalized the government decides who works and who eats. When the government owns the means of production no one has any rights.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the concept of "in a non-ideal world" predicates the whole answer.

The whole world is non-ideal. But we prioritize what matters and what does not. I don't know; I have a hard time with this. I support the war, have consistently, and I believe that country is better off without SH. But what they propose (or impliedly propose by failing to specify otherwise) should piss us off more. Perhaps it is not a direct security threat and so should be viewed somewhat differently than things that fall into that category, but it should not be a "soft" goal or something reserved for an "ideal" world.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Spanky
No but those rights won't be of much use in an impovershed nation. Any country that has nationalized industry has turned into a hell hole. Then rights won't really matter will they? In addition, when all the industry is nationalized the government decides who works and who eats. When the government owns the means of production no one has any rights.

Well, actually, those rights are useful in any instance. Moreover, if women can't work or get education, you've got half the work-age population unable to contribute either brains or muscle to developing the economy, industry, or political realm.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So the answer would be no, then? More blase about sex inequalities than you would be about nationalized property?

Does the level of state control of the economy matter? If you had to choose between equal rights of men and women to vote and serve in government, etc. or a system similar to a 1976 (ie pre-Maggie) era Great Britain -- nationalized health, transport, and energy sectiors (plus some attractive yet idiosyncratically engineered cars from British Leyland), which would you choose?

When I lived in London, the government still owned the phone company so the phone system totally sucked. I would say one in ten pay phones worked. The wait to get a phone was ten months. Don't get me started about the NHS. The South Surrey Hospital was something out of a horror film period piece taking place in medeaval times.

When the hole country is run like the DMV things really suck. I am not blaze about women's rights. I just think if the economy grows women's rights will follow. I would be willing to sacrifice a lot of rights not to live in Great Britain prior to Margaret Thatcher.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So the answer would be no, then? More blase about sex inequalities than you would be about nationalized property?

Does the level of state control of the economy matter? If you had to choose between equal rights of men and women to vote and serve in government, etc. or a system similar to a 1976 (ie pre-Maggie) era Great Britain -- nationalized health, transport, and energy sectiors (plus some attractive yet idiosyncratically engineered cars from British Leyland), which would you choose?

correct. the answer is no. Per my post to nonononononono, the concept of "in a non-ideal world" predicates the whole answer. I am not arguing the equity of gender discrimation, just that at an extreme, making everyone a slave to the state is less preferable than having a free market economy and some gender inequality, because I think the former will remedy the latter.

Implicit in that answer is the answer to the question at the start of your 2nd para above, which is "yes". the level of state control matters as does the level of inequality. Not having the right to vote or serve in government is much different than having no rights or having a system of extreme Islamic law (which may be worse than no rights, I am not sure).
As to your direct hypo in the 2nd paragraph, if I understand the choice, free market with some gender inequality versus full gender equality but socialism, that's a tough one. Again I think the market economy will evolve to equal rights, the socialist economy, maybe its goes the way of GB today or goes the way of Cuba. If push came to shove, in a non-ideal world, I would probably choose the free market economy, but I will acknowledge that you may have exposed some level of latent sexism within me.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
When I lived in London, the government still owned the phone company so the phone system totally sucked. I would say one in ten pay phones worked. The wait to get a phone was ten months. Don't get me started about the NHS. The South Surrey Hospital was something out of a horror film period piece taking place in medeaval times.

When the hole country is run like the DMV things really suck. I am not blaze about women's rights. I just think if the economy grows women's rights will follow. I would be willing to sacrifice a lot of rights not to live in Great Britain prior to Margaret Thatcher.

How did the women's rights get there before, if it's some econ thing but SH was so bad? How do you explain the relative lack of women's rights in, say, our friend Saudi Arabia, which I think is fairly economically developed?

Ach, why do I bother, you are obsessed that free markets bring all and only good.