User Tag List

View Poll Results: Nobel Peace prize is it more "politically expedient" to accept?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 42.22%
  • No

    17 37.78%
  • undecided

    9 20.00%
First 7151617

Results 161 to 170 of 170

  1. #161
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Let's say nation A and nation B are equal in wealth. Now let's say that nation A becomes twice as wealthy in 50 years, and nation B becomes 100 times more wealthy in the same amount of time. In this scenario, nation A is clearly wealthier than it was 50 years ago, but I'm going to dare to say that it would be better off for nation A if things had never changed, because nation B's 100 x increase gives it comparative power which it will probably use to rape nation A.
    You're assuming:

    1.) The disparity in economic growth will remain more or less the same. This assumption can be invalidated through modern observations. For instance, Japan was growing much faster than us in the decades following WWII, and then stagnated so that we were growing faster than them since the nineties. In another example, North Korea developed quicker than South Korea for a while, then the South exploded while the North stagnated and then declined. There are countless other examples (both modern and ancient) to indicate that this assumption is simply erroneous.

    2.) That countries with rapid economic growth will have the will and capacity to "rape" other countries to such an extent that a theoretical decline in relative gains will result in less utility for the weaker nations in the long run than an increase in absolute gains. This assumption has far more historical support, but there are some very good reasons why Realism is no longer as highly regarded as rival theories of international politics within most political science departments today. In any event, this assumption would be no reason for weaker countries to (futilely) prefer the status quo unless your first assumption were correct (which it isn't).

  2. #162
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    um. something something. blah blah. space colonies?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  3. #163
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    I don't think he should have been awarded the prize. It's given for the following two main reasons:
    1. To recognize a person's achievements in bringing about peace/ reducing human suffering connected to political violence in a region
    2. To bring attention to a person with the potential of doing the above so they are taken more seriously and awarded more resources to do their work.

    President Obama, while admirable, meets neither of the above.

    Once awarded though, it made sense to accept. No choice really. Rejecting it would be an insult to past recipients and the committee. Why do that? I thought his statement after the announcement was quite good.

  4. #164
    Senior Member Kangol's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    I don't think he should have been awarded the prize. It's given for the following two main reasons:
    1. To recognize a person's achievements in bringing about peace/ reducing human suffering connected to political violence in a region
    2. To bring attention to a person with the potential of doing the above so they are taken more seriously and awarded more resources to do their work.

    President Obama, while admirable, meets neither of the above.

    Once awarded though, it made sense to accept. No choice really. Rejecting it would be an insult to past recipients and the committee. Why do that? I thought his statement after the announcement was quite good.
    Oh yeah, that was the thread topic. Thanks for bringing it back, as I'm wondering if the digression into economics will have its own thread. It's interesting, but anyway, back to your post.

    You're reiterating what a lot of people have said, without giving reason why he met neither of your reasons. I think the post given earlier with a video addressing the issue makes a good argument why Obama does meet those qualifications.


    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    [youtube="271d_lVwfrw"]Rachel Maddow Addresses Nobel Peace Prize[/youtube]

  5. #165
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It won't keep up forever. When people become richer, their birth rates fall down to at/below the replacement rate. Now we need to work on getting the poorest parts of the world wealthier. And what does that very well? Oh, right: free trade, technology, and globalization.
    How does globalization and mass industrialization help the world?

    From an economic perspective, globalization and an expansion of world government, along with an overpopulation of the third world leads to a major depletion of resources.

    Smaller, self-sufficient nations with very developed technologies are the best in pure economic terms.

    It isn't our job to babysit the world. Globalization and a blanket government for all cannot work in a world that has so many different cultures and peoples. Territorialism is a natural inclination in such a world, and it will never change - unless the far left has its way and attempts to establish a secular humanist dictatorship, which will inevitably end in failure like the Soviet Union.

    Globalization is nothing than a modern tool used to expand political power and resource exploitation, that is almost always squandered due to the fact that it is rarely used for anything more than profit; consumerism =/= growth.

    Free trade guarantees nothing and doesn't work on a global scale, for the reasons I've listed above. Technology by itself does not create energy, but consumes it. What has globalization done to benefit our world, except to bring us into the worst economic depression in history?
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

  6. #166
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    You're assuming:

    1.) The disparity in economic growth will remain more or less the same. This assumption can be invalidated through modern observations. For instance, Japan was growing much faster than us in the decades following WWII, and then stagnated so that we were growing faster than them since the nineties. In another example, North Korea developed quicker than South Korea for a while, then the South exploded while the North stagnated and then declined. There are countless other examples (both modern and ancient) to indicate that this assumption is simply erroneous.
    Neither Japan in that time frame certainly nor North Korea were participating the kind of economic system being discussed. And if you wonder what I meany by Japan, it was rather protectionistic as well business regulating through the time of it's growh.

    Secondly, the example I gave was an abstract example on purpose. The main point I was making is that in such a circumstance, nation A should be unhappy, because it's powerless. I'd also like to add that it clearly received only a tiny fraction of the wealth gained over those 50 years, which is another, if less consquential reason to be happy.

    Yes, as far as I can see, the kind of economics that most libertarians has created a pattern of expanding inequality between and within states. Unregulated market economics stratifies society badly, and you cannot downplay how much it sucks to be at the bottom stratum.


    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    2.) That countries with rapid economic growth will have the will and capacity to "rape" other countries to such an extent that a theoretical decline in relative gains will result in less utility for the weaker nations in the long run than an increase in absolute gains. This assumption has far more historical support, but there are some very good reasons why Realism is no longer as highly regarded as rival theories of international politics within most political science departments today. In any event, this assumption would be no reason for weaker countries to (futilely) prefer the status quo unless your first assumption were correct (which it isn't).
    And I say my first assumption is correct in this case. I say most poor nations entering the system merely enter exploitation that will give them little mobility. What would be preferable to that and the status quo, would be a way to increase one's wealth without being at the mercy of a global free trade system.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #167
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    How does globalization and mass industrialization help the world?
    By lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.


    From an economic perspective, globalization and an expansion of world government, along with an overpopulation of the third world leads to a major depletion of resources.
    Who said anything about world government? And the not-nearly-overpopulated United States does a fine job of "depleting" resources, so I don't know why you'd think Third World countries with high populations are such a problem.


    Smaller, self-sufficient nations with very developed technologies are the best in pure economic terms.
    Actually, a world without borders and tariffs would be the best in pure economic terms, but we (alas) don't live in such a place.


    It isn't our job to babysit the world. Globalization and a blanket government for all cannot work in a world that has so many different cultures and peoples. Territorialism is a natural inclination in such a world, and it will never change - unless the far left has its way and attempts to establish a secular humanist dictatorship, which will inevitably end in failure like the Soviet Union.
    I never claimed we should babysit the world. I hate that we try to do that as it is. We don't need the power of government to trade freely, despite what many "neoliberals" would have us believe.


    Globalization is nothing than a modern tool used to expand political power and resource exploitation, that is almost always squandered due to the fact that it is rarely used for anything more than profit; consumerism =/= growth.
    Globalization began with the first ship piled up with goods to trade. You're taking a very intransigent and near-Luddite position.


    Free trade guarantees nothing and doesn't work on a global scale, for the reasons I've listed above. Technology by itself does not create energy, but consumes it. What has globalization done to benefit our world, except to bring us into the worst economic depression in history?
    Free trade can and does work. And you must know that we have had at least one depression worse than this before. You've probably read about it in school.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #168
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    By lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.
    The number 1 source of reduced poverty in the past 10 years has been China. I'm not denying trade... they did open up to trade. I just wonder if China is a role model now.

    Anyhow, I believe political hegemony, cultural hegemony, and economic hegemony are all mutually supportive. In other words, if you had a world that was totally economically globalized, a world government would be around the corner.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #169
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Anyhow, I believe political hegemony, cultural hegemony, and economic hegemony are all mutually supportive. In other words, if you had a world that was totally economically globalized, a world government would be around the corner.
    I fear that you are correct, at least for most institutions. The United States and the European Union are good examples of how political power becomes centralised in a free trade zone.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  10. #170
    Senior Member Lex Talionis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    By lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.
    No. Wise use of resources lifts "hundreds of millions" out of poverty. Wise production and consumption lifts "hundreds of millions" out of poverty.

    Globalization is definitely failing in this regard, and is completely unrelated to the issue.

    Who said anything about world government? And the not-nearly-overpopulated United States does a fine job of "depleting" resources, so I don't know why you'd think Third World countries with high populations are such a problem.
    Globalization isn't just an economic term; it encompasses politics and culture, which means that a world government is an inevitable end result.

    There is no law, be it moral or legislative, which dictates that the earth is somehow owned by everyone. Humans are not a political collective, and even if they were, how we split our resources is debatable.

    Actually, a world without borders and tariffs would be the best in pure economic terms, but we (alas) don't live in such a place.
    That is an idealistic delusion, and even if it were true, it wouldn't mean that a world that wasn't circumscribed would be any better of. You would only add a far greater amount of people to the world market. This is economically disastrous. Autarkic nation states that trade amongst each other is a far safer, more resourceful alternative to globalization.

    Besides, economics is far from the only important factor in world affairs.

    I never claimed we should babysit the world. I hate that we try to do that as it is. We don't need the power of government to trade freely, despite what many "neoliberals" would have us believe.
    Globalization entails direct interference with national sovereignty - be it economic or otherwise.

    Globalization began with the first ship piled up with goods to trade. You're taking a very intransigent and near-Luddite position.
    No. That wasn't "globalization." That was simple international trade. Globalization is a very broad process of internationalism. There is a very large difference.

    Intransigent and Luddite? Do you even know what these terms mean?

    Intransigent are the people who let social 'reality' deceive them into disregarding true reality; the reality outside of one's perception; natural reality. Globalization is a great blanket to throw across the eyes of sheep. Wise consumption and production isn't 'near-Luddite', it's an economic necessity.

    Free trade can and does work.
    I have no problem with international trade. My problem lies with globalization.

    Free trade works depending on how it manifests itself in reality. Corporations have their profits to worry about, and the government alone is far too incompetent to regulate all of it. I'm not saying that free trade should be prohibited - nothing of the sort.

    And you must know that we have had at least one depression worse than this before. You've probably read about it in school.
    Our previous depression is a good miniature model of today's economic "meltdown." They were both caused by similar factors - one is simply on a much larger scale.

    Don't mistake capitalism for globalization (although admittedly, they tend to go hand in hand.)
    Last edited by Lex Talionis; 10-14-2009 at 09:40 PM.
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily."
    —Bonaparte

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 01:11 AM
  2. [NT] Why is it so hard for Me to stop focusing on Myself?
    By The Ü™ in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-15-2011, 06:06 AM
  3. [NF] NFs, What Is The Most Polite Way for me to Address my Teachers (Middle Eastern Case)?
    By BMEF in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-21-2010, 08:37 AM
  4. [ENTJ] ENTJs: How easy is it for you to give the cold shoulder?
    By MoneyTick in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-05-2010, 02:24 PM
  5. Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize
    By Ethereal in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 12-16-2009, 12:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO