• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My correspondance with a guy from Turkey (long)...

Malachi151

Graduate Poster
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
1,404
Hey! I found your essay with a line you have put in one of the forum pages of historyexplained.com I really appreciate your work. I am from Turkey and it surprised me that there are people in the Western world who can think of being "equal" with others My question is abaut the elite system you have talked about. In historyexplained.com, developed nations are categorized as "democratic market societies". If the system in US is an elitest system, how come it is democratic. Isn't there a paradox?

My second question is about economics. You indicate that developing nations are exploited vecause they do not have an internal economic system. As far as I know, USA is powerful because it has succeeded in creating a powerful democratic market society in the past. How did USA create it? And, what measures should the developing nations have to take in order to create it in this age?
I would be very happy if you can answer my e-mail!

Hi, great to hear from someone from Turkey. Isn't the internet an amazing thing! Well, I don't exactly agree with what is said at history explained on many issues, especially that of "democratic market societies".

There are always degrees of democracy. In truth the American system is Republican, not Democratic. We just call it Democratic because that's a popular word to use. Our system is one of the more open and more democratic systems in the world, but its far from perfect. This is not really a complaint against America, its more of a statement about humanity itself.

If you study American presidents you see that almost all of them were born wealthy, and that many have common social and family ties. Its still a somewhat elitist system, but its not officially an elitist system and it is POSSIBLE for anyone to become president, its just rare that it happens unless you have an elite family background.

For example Bill Clinton is an example of a man that truly did come from a poor family and become a president by his own actions, but Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Eisenhower, Ford, John F. Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, and Bush all have elitist backgrounds or strong social ties to elite groups.

Really the American system is very highly manipulated, its just something that we are currently having to struggle with. Politics is very corrupt here, but I think it is almost everywhere. That's the nature of people, power and corruption go together. Typically its the most corrupt people that make it to the top IMO, in America or in Iraq, or in France, or in Nigeria, or China, or anywhere. Some times, in rare cases a really good person does make it to the top or into good political positions and that's a good thing. The good thing about the American system is that we have elections often so it doesn't even matter that much if corrupt people do get into office because they come and go so much they can't really do too much damage.

Yes, I think that other countries obviously have a problem because their economy relies on exports and the rich people in 3rd world countries are loyal to the West because that is there they earn their money, from foreigners. A country can only really be successful IMO when the most of the money that the rich people in the country are loyal to is domestic.

Look at Turkey. Turkey is home of some of the oldest and richest civilizations in the world. 500 or 600 years ago Turkey was at the center of the economic world. Instanbul/Constantanople used to be one of the richest places in the world, and is still rich but Turkey is nothing like America and Australia. But look, Turkey is thousands of years old.

Look at America and Australia. Both are only 200 or so years old and when white people came to both of these places they were full of natural resources that had never really been used. All of Europe and Asia had already been mined heavily for metals and had much of its timber and rocks cut. America and Australia were like big free treasure chests. Before WWII all of the money in the world was related to gold. Basically gold was money, even though we had paper money it still represented real gold. That meant that if you found gold that was the same thing as finding money, literally.

So think about America and Australia. These places had never been mined before, and in the 1800s and early 1900s billions and billions of dollars worth of gold was found in these countries. That's like if Turkey were to just find trillions of dollars of money laying around in Turkey today. That would help you economy hugely if the rich people didn't just horde it all for themselves.

People were allowed to have freedom to use this new found money, the rich people didn't just get all of it, they got a lot, but not all of it, so it helped everyone. But seriously, study the history of gold and you see that its a huge factor in how the world has turned out. Basically because America and Australia were new places the people that came here got lots of "free" materials and "free" property and money.

Also look at the Boer War, that is where the British stole the largest gold mine in the world from the South Africans, that's how the British got so damned rich, they stole gold mines, and they sold opium to the people of Asia, and they had the salve trade in the 1700s, etc.

But look at Turkey's history, you know Turkey was making money the hard way from trade for thousands of years and then what happened was that Spain made it to America, and they started stealing the gold from the Natives, and then British stole the gold from Spain and they both started to enslave Africans, and then the Americans revolted and they kept slaves and had one of the largest slavery systems in the history of the world. In the 1800s slaves were about 20% of the population in the South in America. That's a lot of slaves. All those slaves made lots of money for America, that’s how people got rich.

But, lets go to World War I.

Okay, in World War I Turkey sided with Germany because both Germany and Turkey opposed British and French imperialism. Well they didn't oppose it, they just wanted bigger empires themselves. Turkey wanted to expand their power and to get the French and British our of their area. But the war was fought largely in and around Turkey , the Turkish suffered huge losses in WWI. And, not only that, but you guys lost a lot of material wealth too. Both Turkey and Germany got screwed in WWI. It was the fault of the Turkish people of course for getting into the war in the first place, but the fact is that you came out of WWI much worse off than when you went into it, it hurt your country.

But, look at America. America barely even fought in WWI, we came in late and didn't send many troops. But see America is far away from all the fighting. Our country never gets hurt from wars, only Europe Asia and the Middle East gets hurt. That's why after WWI America came out the best because our country never got hurt, but all of Europe, Turkey, and parts of Asia and the Middle East did get hurt, and America made huge profits from the war. America made billions and billions of dollars off WWI by selling weapons and supplies to all sides, the Allied forces and Germany and Turkey too.

So then, after WWII America did great and Europe and Turkey had a horrible time, and they owed a lot of debt. But who was the debt to? It was to America. You see, after WWI European countries had to get huge loans from America at high interest rates to pay for their recovery, so all of Europe was in debt to America after WWI, and that hurt their economies. Actually Germany took on the debt for all of Europe, and that debt was too America. Also American companies price gouged during the war, like they charged very high prices for food and supplies which made it all worse, even though we had plenty.

So, then America had the depression of the 1930s when much of America was in poverty.

Then came World War II and all of that industry brought America out of poverty, but after World War II again the whole rest of the world was devastated but America had been unharmed because we are far away. During World War II America acquired a lot of gold from around the world. And gold was still tied to money at that point. After World War II America had over half of all the gold ever mined in the world. See, that’s how our economy stayed so strong after the war, we had gotten all that gold from the Axis powers, we just took it. We didn't take it all, but we gave some of it back to the places where they had taken it from, but we still kept a lot of it, a whole lot, and that's part of how America got rich, taking Axis gold. Not many people know that, but its really a huge issue. People in America don't like to think that we got rich by stealing Axis gold, but that is the truth. Of course is was a war so I think it was justified anyway, I think we should have taken the gold, but the fact is, we got rich by our government seizing tons and tons and tons of gold.

Then, after WWII you see the American dollar was the only stable currency in the world, because of the chaos of the war, but also because we had all that gold and because of that the US Dollar became the international reserve currency and the OPEC petro-dollar. This obviously has helped the American economy hugely.

Then, after WWII the Cold War started and America used that as an excuse to invade countries all over the world in the name of "fighting communism", but in reality a lot of that had nothing to do with fighting communism it was really just US imperialism. South America and Asia are the two major examples there, Nicaragua, Honduras, Indonesia, etc.

That's how America has become successful, but there has also been a lot of hard work by the citizens who are not involved in any of that stuff too. Its just like everywhere else. Every individual hast their own agenda. While some Americans were helping to build a corrupt empire in South East Asia or South America during the 1960s other at home were doing hard honest work, and its both a part of how America gets wealthy.

But, as for internal markets, that is the key to prosperity because when your own people provide the market for business then the business is loyal to your own people. When a foreign country provides your business then your business if loyal to that foreign country. Look at how much America imports. That means that many businessmen and politicians from around the world are loyal to America because we are the source of their business . America had a plan early on, by Alexander Hamilton, one of our founders, to give incentives to people and to help the poor so that American businesses would have a market in America of people to sell to. As long as your own people are well enough off that the majority of your business is sold to your own people then your businessmen are loyal to their own country. When the majority of what your country makes is exported then your business is loyal to foreigners, and that is never good IMO.

The truth is that counties cannot do today what America did to gain power. Developing countries will have to take a new path. A lot of how America became rich and powerful had to do with simply have a country that had emense natural resources that had never been exploited before. This land would have made anyone rich that had conquered it.

But, democracy is important, even if it is not perfect. Our system is corrupt, but it always has been, but its still not as corrupt as most other places. Getting religion out of politics is a good thing. America was the first modern secualr country with a government that was not related to religion, the separation of church and state, that is important. Education is important and I think that helping the poor is important. What changed America after World War II was that the government really helped average and poor people to do better, and the more people do better then the better everyone does. We had the GI Bill here that meant eveyroen who went to war, when they came back they got a free college education and cheap homes and access to good jobs. And that created a lot of oppertunity for people, but you don't need a war to do that, you can do it without a war, but you need a society where the rich people at the top are not afraid of the poor people taking away their power.

See after the 1930s depression people were ready to help the poor and to help everyone here, even most of the rich people were willing to help. That's what it takes IMO, the rich people have to be willing to help, and once you get things going and once the people start doing better its like a snowball, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and more and more people do better. We are losing that here in America, now we are starting to go back to the old ways and the poor are getting poorer here again and the rich richer. The key is that the rich people have to be willing to help the poor people and when the people have help they can do so much more with their lives and everyone works together to make the country a better place. In order for that to work your leaders have to be willing to spend money to help the poor, to help education, and to be loyal to your own people above anything else.

At least that's how I see it.

Hi! First of all, I want to thank you for writing such a comprehansive answer to me. I have read many things about American system. Even in the books which are written by univercity academicians, they mentioned abaout the "elite theory". However, when ý did a rearch on that I could not find much on this topic. Related to this topic, you have mentioned about Democracy and Republic. Are they two different thnings? I always used to think them as almost the same.

I do really believe that the exploration of America did not only help USA but also to Europe. I think that it was the trade between America and Europe which have created the first capitalists which are crucial in shifting to a market economy.

If you aske me, do you want to be governed by an elite, I would say "no". Because, as you have rightfully mentioned the elites of developing countries are much loyal to West than they are to their homelands. An example of this has just happened in Turkey. In Turkey, the vast majority of the people has oppesed to a war in Iraq, while the rich elite clearly supported it. And, I think this a good proof of your ideas.

But, what should be done to overcome this emberrasing situation. We can't send our ships to explore new unexplored lands. We can't just ignore this elite, because they are very crucial to our economy. Do you have any ideas about the solution to this problem.

In your reply,you have mentioned abaot the slave trade and the abuse of them. But, when you look at today's modern American society, most of the black American are in the frontier of American patriotism. How did USA succeed in creating such a unified nation while Canada could not.( You know the Quebec situation.)

By frontier of American patriotism do you mean that you see many blacks fighting in Iraq on TV? In this country if you join the military the military will pay for you to go to college. Because many blacks are poor in America then many blacks join the military because that is the only way they can afford to go to college.

Overall blacks are not more patriotic in America. I think that patriotism in America is pretty equal among people of all races for some different reasons. Racism and discrimination are almost totally gone in America. It still exists, and its something that Americans recognize, but compared to most other places in the world there is almost no racism here. I think that makes many minorities patriotic here. Blacks in America do still complain a lot about racism, but its on a different level, its not about basic human rights, we all have that here, its about much smaller issues. I think that people of every race in America knows that we are all very well off here compared to the rest of the world so that makes people of all races patriotic.

As for how to fix the problems of the third world, I think that several things have to be done:

People of developed countries have to be educated about how they have really become wealthy and how their countries really impact the world today. In America today we learn nothing in school about how this country has become wealthy. Here we only learn that God has blessed America and our ancestors fought for freedom, we learn a little bit about slavery, but nothing about the economics of slavery. Very few people here understand the impact of having all of the free access to natural resources that we had, and in most schools here they don't even teach 20th century history! They might mention World War One, but nothing much. Most American history in high school and even college deals with the founding of the country and talks about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the human rights issues of early slavery, and then the Civil War, and that’s about it.

So, the majority of Americans really don't understand how the country has become rich in the first place, this applies even to many rich people in America. If you ask an average American how this country has become rich they will say something like from hard work and God.

So, because Americans don't understand this many Americans think that people in 3rd world countries are poor because they are lazy or because they are not good Christians. This is crazy of course, but you will find this to be a popular idea in America.

So, after people in developed countries are educated, then people in developed countries will have to decide to help people in undeveloped countries.

I know that does not sound very good, but I think that it will have to happen, and it may never happen, or if it does happen is could take 30 years or 300 years to happen.

Of course international trade and globalization should also help currently poor countries, but ONLY if the people of those countries can make the labor laws work for them. Globalization can be a good thing, but its only good if the elite of your country is willing to make Western companies work in your favor. I think that really all of the 3rd world needs to band together and demand higher wages from international companies. So yes, I think that right now most 3rd world countries are trying to work with the Western powers, but this is the wrong approach. That is a good start, but what you really need to do is form international unions among all 3rd world countries. So with Turkey for example your people should be trying to cooperate and form treaties with Asian countries and India to put pressure on American and Australian and European companies to increase wages and improve working conditions. As that happens then your people will become more wealthy and then there will be a natural shift to more domestic markets.

None of that is an easy thing to do, its easy to say, but I have no idea how to make it happen.

You see developed nations try to keep 3rd world nations weak and separate. And 3rd world countries don't help this either because they fight among themselves. All the 3rd world counties should be joining together just like all the poor people join together to form unions. The poor nations should join together to form unions. Not to fight the West to conquer it, but just to make sure that you have to be treated fairly. The West is not going to do this for the world. People try to maintain power as much as possible, and I think that my goal in America is to help educate people here, but that's not easy and you can't rely on that. For people in the 3rd world the key is to put aside the differences among nations and among ethnic groups and for all poor people of the world to realize that their neighbors are not their enemy, the West is the problem, but not an enemy. Rich people all over the world are the ones that are screwing us all and they are in America or Japan or China or Turkey or South Africa or France, its all the same. The only way to fight that is not with violence though, but to form alliances among the poor to unite together. So Turkey should be forming alliances with Pakistan, India, the Balkan countries, Singapore, Indonesia, Nigeria, China, all that but also just every developing country around the world. And all of these countries have to join together and send a single unified message to the West and Japan that you demand better treatment from Western powers in the form of wages and prices for commodities and things that you sell to Western powers.

The way that the West is able to get its way is because if Turkey will not agree to something then they just go to Pakistan and if they will not agree then they go to Honduras, or Indonesia, or anywhere. Western people can trade with anyone in the world so they have their choice, but you do not. Perhaps Islam is a form of that happening today. I think that perhaps Islam is uniting the people of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia and it may have a good effect in some way, but I don't think that can be the only way. You have to have secular and political unification too, not just religious. The leaders in America keep saying that this war on terror is not about Islam, but Western leaders are afraid of Islam I think because of what I just said. Its a way that the developing world is becoming united, and they don't want that.

Like I said, counties are like individual people. Just like people have to unite to form a union to get fair treatment from employers if the employers are not freely giving fair treatment, countries also have to unite to get fair treatment from other more powerful countries.

So basically I think that all of the 3rd world countries need to start looking at each other more as allies instead of trying to ally with the West. But your politicians aren't going to do that, they are going to ally with the West because that is where they get their money and power. Its not easy, and I really don't know enough about the local politics of 3rd world countries to say what should be done. Like I said, our system is corrupt too, just look at Bush, he's a corrupt lying millionaire, who's father was rich, and his grandfather was rich too. Its all corrupt, and large companies here have a huge influence on our politics too. I just hope that Bush is not elected again in 2004. If he is not then I think you will see America make some big changes and begin to be more responsible and fair with 3rd world countries.

All I know is that its a difficult struggle for all people all over the world. I feel that all people of all races and all nations are more closely related by class than they are by nationality. The poor classes of the world have to struggle together against the elite of the world, and we have to put race and religion and cultural differences aside and see that we are all being oppressed by the same group of wealthy elite. We are all together in the same boat. Probably 99% of Americans do not agree with what I just said, because we are taught here not to think that way, but I think it is true. Everyone is taught to have enemies and that the enemies are people who are of different cultures, but that is not true, that is just how the elite keeps people in chaos so that they can take advantage of the masses I think. So people need to get into the attitude of supporting the struggle of the working people in all countries. If you hear on the news about the plight of workers in South America or in Malaysia or even in Europe and America, if people are striking, you should be in support of that, because its all related. You have to want good things for the workers of every country in order to have good things for your own country I believe. And maybe at first you can do nothing, but I think that just thinking that way is a start. Today I have still done very little to help anyone. All I have done is just write to people and write on the internet and I am active in politics in America, and right now that is all I can do. But that is a start and if I have more opportunity to help others in the future then I will do that, hopefully I can do that.
 
All this proves is that there are stupid people in Turkey too.
 
I haven't read the whole essay yet, but want to react to something M wrote. Specifically, American Presidents being born wealthy....

In the 20th Century, not true...nor even in the 19th. Sure, there are examples like the Rosevelts, but most Presidents emerged either from poverty or the middle class....

For example, counting backwards...

Clinton -- relatively poor
Reagan -- relatively poor
Carter -- middle class (wealthy, only in terms of Plains Georgia in the early 20th Century).
Ford -- Poor to middle Class
Nixon -- Poor
Johnson -- Poor
Eisenhower -- Poor to Middleclass
Truman -- Poor
Coolidge -- Poor to Middleclass
Hoover -- Poor to Middle Class
Harding -- Middle Class
Wilson -- Middle Class

The ones I know about in the 19th Century...

Jackson -- poor
Lincoln -- Poor
Johnson -- poor
Grant -- middle class
Hayes -- poor
McKinley -- poor/middle class

Now, whether poor, middle class or "working" class, these were not people born into sustainable wealth...most of them had to "work" for a living.

Careful M. You may not like how these men came to be prosperous or the class they came to "represent" in your Marxist ideology...but many of them were not born "wealthy" even by the standards of their day, and like Clinton and Reagan were self made men....Indeed, the list of "self made" men in the 20th Century is quite profound... the Bushes and the Rosevelts and John Kennedy actually being the exceptions rather than the rule.
 
headscratcher4 said:
I haven't read the whole essay yet, but want to react to something M wrote. Specifically, American Presidents being born wealthy....

In the 20th Century, not true...nor even in the 19th. Sure, there are examples like the Rosevelts, but most Presidents emerged either from poverty or the middle class....

For example, counting backwards...

Clinton -- relatively poor
Reagan -- relatively poor
Carter -- middle class (wealthy, only in terms of Plains Georgia in the early 20th Century).
Ford -- Poor to middle Class
Nixon -- Poor
Johnson -- Poor
Eisenhower -- Poor to Middleclass
Truman -- Poor
Coolidge -- Poor to Middleclass
Hoover -- Poor to Middle Class
Harding -- Middle Class
Wilson -- Middle Class

and on and on...Careful M. You may not like how these men came to be prosperous or the class they came to "represent" in your Marxist ideology...but many of them were not born wealthy, even by the standards of their day, and like Clinton and Reagan were self made men....

Well perhaps, but this is exactly what I said:

If you study American presidents you see that almost all of them were born wealthy, and that many have common social and family ties. Its still a somewhat elitist system, but its not officially an elitist system and it is POSSIBLE for anyone to become president, its just rare that it happens unless you have an elite family background.

For example Bill Clinton is an example of a man that truly did come from a poor family and become a president by his own actions, but Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Eisenhower, Ford, John F. Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, and Bush all have elitist backgrounds or strong social ties to elite groups.

Yes, sayign they were born wealthy was not accurate but the highlighted part is really more at issue in terms of recent presidnts.

Now maybe Reagan was born relatively poor, but he became incolved in elite social and political circles early on, he worked with Nixon and Ford both prior to becoming a president, and was a wealthy actor and politician for much of his life. So he was still very much an insider. And thats the issue, being an insider. Reagan was an insider, Nixon was an insider, JFK, Bush, etc.

Presidents like Eisenhower and Reagan are somewhat debatable in the firts place though because they were such puppet type presidents. Eisenhower was approached by wealthy businessmen and encouranged to run and he was hooked up with the most advanced campaign in history at the tie and ran the first political TV commercials, which was not his idea, in fact he was against it.

In a sense I guess it would be impossible to expect people to become president unless they were wealthy and powerful, but thats the point. Pretty much any political system is going to have a level of corruption no matter what.

And interestingly, though both Roosevelts came from among the wealthiest backgrounds of American presidents they were also among the best American presidents for the working people and poor as well.
 
Clinton -- relatively poor
Reagan -- relatively poor actor
Carter -- business class packet of peanuts
Ford -- football class
Nixon -- Poor audio-tape eraser
Johnson -- Poor grasp of war tactics
Eisenhower -- Famous for being on the dime.
Truman -- Poor movie starring Jim Carrey
Coolidge -- Rode to victory on the Alliteration platform
Hoover -- related to cross-dresser
Harding -- Tonya?
Wilson -- Vollyball

The ones I know about in the 19th Century...

Jackson -- poor plastic surgery
Lincoln -- Poor kids play with his logs
Johnson -- and Johnson
Grant -- He's on the 50, how poor could he be?
Hayes -- First lady of American theatre
McKinley -- named after the mountain
 
Malachi151 said:

Now maybe Reagan was born relatively poor, but he became incolved in elite social and political circles early on, he worked with Nixon and Ford both prior to becoming a president, and was a wealthy actor and politician for much of his life. So he was still very much an insider. And thats the issue, being an insider. Reagan was an insider, Nixon was an insider, JFK, Bush, etc.

{...snip...}

In a sense I guess it would be impossible to expect people to become president unless they were wealthy and powerful, but thats the point. Pretty much any political system is going to have a level of corruption no matter what.

That's the weakness in your philosophy. You equate wealth with corruption.

The american presidency is by its very nature a powerful position. Your philosophy implies that anyone who attains wealth or power is naturally corrupt. Since anyone who becomes president will have power, they would by definition be corrupt in your eyes.

What is so bad about working hard to better yourself? Why is it so hard to accept that most successful people in this country got there through hard work and weren't born into wealth?
 
jayrev said:


That's the weakness in your philosophy. You equate wealth with corruption.

The american presidency is by its very nature a powerful position. Your philosophy implies that anyone who attains wealth or power is naturally corrupt. Since anyone who becomes president will have power, they would by definition be corrupt in your eyes.

What is so bad about working hard to better yourself? Why is it so hard to accept that most successful people in this country got there through hard work and weren't born into wealth?

How much do you actually know about how people become wealthy? Granted that everyone does it in slightly different ways but a large portion of America's wealthiest and most powerful people were all involved in corrupt or power abusive schemes at some time.

I made another post on the History Channel special on Wealth and Power in America, you should watch it.

Here are some of Americas wealthiest and most powerful people of all time:

John Jacob Astor : He made millions in the fur and opium trade and in real estate in New York City. He became initially wealthy by going to Indians, getting them drunk and then buying their furs at very low prices. Indians have a low tolerant for alcohol since it was not natural to them and he brought many Indians to alcoholism, which he became like a drug dealer, supplying them with liquor in exchange for furs.

He then expanded to trade with China, in which he traded furs for opium. He also manipulated the early war bond (of 1812) market for profits making millions of dollars, and costing tax payers.

He never gave hardly anything to charity and was a stern and belligerent man, and the most wealthy man in America for a long time. He controlled much of New York City in the early days because he owned about 1/3 of the housing there. He had control over the lives of thousand of people and if you got on his bad side, you were screwed. When asked to donate to a local charity once he wrote them a check for $50, and that was it. The people were stunned.

He did make a small donation to New York City upon his death.

JP Morgan is another example. He was, in the height of his power, the most powerful man in America. He also manipulated bond markets and other markets. He was an international financier and had a large degree of control over rail roads and actually just about everything. He controlled who would or would not be successful at his whim. He created AT&T, GE, and American Steel. He was a ruthless financier who was largely hated among the public in his day and as a result of his abuse of power many Federal Regulations were adopted and the Federal Reserve was created to prevent individuals like JP Morgan from having such single handed control over markets.

Andrew Carnegie is another example. Made is fortune in steel by controlling markets and eliminating competitors. He was initially a "friend" of the working man, but later began cutting wages and refusing to make is factories more save. His workers went on strike for better treatment and the result was a shooting to break the strike in which 4 people were murdered. he owned whole towns and kept thousands of people in poverty working in his mills through threat and intimidation and simply not offering any other alternatives.

He did later sell his company and donate most of his money away.

Then you have Rockefeller. Rockefeller said that his wealth was God given. Rockefeller was perhaps the most corrupt businessman of all time, and also the richest man in American history. Standard Oil was his company, and he used all manner of tactics to put every other oil company out of business. BY the height of his power he had an almost global monopoly on oil, accounting for about 90% of all oil sold in the world. He used oppressive tactics to put other men out of business, he controlled markets and was able to prevent others from getting access to things like transportation or barrels so they could not ship their oil. He would pay to make sure that trains and boats did not run as they were supposed to, to disrupt the business of others. He was involved in American interventions all over the world including Mexico, Nicaragua, and China. Literally millions of people died to make him the richest man in America.

As a result of his actions Teddy Roosevelt began the regulation of industry and splitting up of monopolies in America. His practices were extremely anti-competitive.

Now JFK. His father, Joseph Kennedy, began a millionaire by smuggling booze during Prohibition. He was involved in international crime and the American mafia. After Prohibition was over he went legit and became one of the most powerful families in America.

Those are just a few examples.

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

- Major General Smedley Butler 1933
 
Malachi151 said:


How much do you actually know about how people become wealthy? Granted that everyone does it in slightly different ways but a large portion of America's wealthiest and most powerful people were all involved in corrupt or power abusive schemes at some time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a large portion". Five percent? Twenty percent? More than half? Eighty percent? Or just the handful that you mentioned? Yes, there have been people who have become wealthy and powerful through corrupt means. There have also been many criminals who weren't wealthy and powerful, but I would be lambasted if I tried to correlate poverty with crime. Some people are honest, some are not. Some people are financially successful. Some are not. You have proven no correlation between wealth and corruption. Just more of your propaganda. Why is it a bad thing to be financially successful? I think that a large part of communist philosophy is derived from jealousy.
 
Look at Turkey. Turkey is home of some of the oldest and richest civilizations in the world. 500 or 600 years ago Turkey was at the center of the economic world. Instanbul/Constantanople used to be one of the richest places in the world, and is still rich but Turkey is nothing like America and Australia. But look, Turkey is thousands of years old.


Malachi you know very little about the History of the area.

You confuse the Ottomans with the Turks. Turkey is 80 years old for Christ sake!!!!

And when Instabul was the centre of the economic world Ottoman Turks ( that are just a tribe of the Ottomans) haven't arrived to the area yet...

Show us some mercy please. Don't post such things.
 
Cleopatra said:



Malachi you know very little about the History of the area.

You confuse the Ottomans with the Turks. Turkey is 80 years old for Christ sake!!!!

And when Instabul was the centre of the economic world Ottoman Turks ( that are just a tribe of the Ottomans) haven't arrived to the area yet...

Show us some mercy please. Don't post such things.

That's kind of an idiotic thing ot say. Of course the newly drawn up nation is new, virtually all boarders in the world are only 100 or 200 years old. The culture and civilization in Turkey are very old though obviously. India is officially a recent country, so is China, so is Germany, so Is Iraq, etc. Are you going to tell Germans that their culture is not hundreds of years old? :p

Do you really know so little about ancient history?

Constantanople was one of the economic centres of the world for hundreds of years.

http://www.turizm.net/cities/istanbul/index1.html

Then, with adoption of christianity, she became the most important culture and art center of christianity throughout the medieval age. Later on she became the political and economic center (395). After partition of Roman Empire in two parts, she became the capital of the East Roman Empire (Byzantium Empire).

http://www.greatestcities.com/Middl...onstantinople_city_state_capital/history.html

According to legend, Istanbul was founded in 667 BC by a Greek colonizer, Byzas the Megarian, from whom the city's original name, Byzantium, is derived. Because of Byzantium's strategic and economic importance, Athenians, Persians, Spartans, Macedonians, and Romans fought over the city for centuries. In 324 AD Roman emperor Constantine the Great defeated rival emperor Licinius at Chrysopolis (now Üsküdar) and became the sole Roman emperor. Constantine made Byzantium his capital in 330, expanding the city until it rested on seven hills, like Rome. The city was soon called Constantinople, meaning “city of Constantine.” Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire—the eastern part of the Roman Empire, which survived the fall of Rome in the 5th century—and subsequently developed into the center of the Greek Orthodox Christian world. Beginning in the 4th century, Constantinople hosted eight councils of the Christian church.

map_istanbul.gif


Constantinople was a major trading port for hundreds of years.

Of course then it was sacked by the Western Catholic armies, and then taken over by the Ottomans. The point, obviously, is that that region has been developed and economically active for thousands of years. Because of that much of the resources in teh regiion of modern Turkey have already been exploited, its an old economy. The advantage that America had over places like Turkey was that, unlike being a place that has been economically developed for thousands of years, America was an untouched place with vast natural resources that were free for the taking. In terms of raw material America had thousands fo time more natural resources avaibale than a place like Turkey 200 years ago. That alone gives America a huge economic advantage.
 
Still you have no idea of what are you talking about.

Turkey is not consisted of Ottoman Turks only. In fact Ottoman turks are only a small percentage of the whole population.That's why analysts of the area are wondering if Turkey will exist in 50 years from now.

So the whole rambling of yours about Turkey is irrelevant.

Don't lecture a Greek about what sort of city Constantinople was.

Greeks were controlling the economy of the city until 1956.

Unless you composed this outrageous post just to flatter the guy who paid a visit to your site.
 
Malachi151 said:


How much do you actually know about how people become wealthy? Granted that everyone does it in slightly different ways but a large portion of America's wealthiest and most powerful people were all involved in corrupt or power abusive schemes at some time.

I made another post on the History Channel special on Wealth and Power in America, you should watch it.

Here are some of Americas wealthiest and most powerful people of all time:

John Jacob Astor : He made millions in the fur and opium trade and in real estate in New York City. He became initially wealthy by going to Indians, getting them drunk and then buying their furs at very low prices. Indians have a low tolerant for alcohol since it was not natural to them and he brought many Indians to alcoholism, which he became like a drug dealer, supplying them with liquor in exchange for furs.

He then expanded to trade with China, in which he traded furs for opium. He also manipulated the early war bond (of 1812) market for profits making millions of dollars, and costing tax payers.

He never gave hardly anything to charity and was a stern and belligerent man, and the most wealthy man in America for a long time. He controlled much of New York City in the early days because he owned about 1/3 of the housing there. He had control over the lives of thousand of people and if you got on his bad side, you were screwed. When asked to donate to a local charity once he wrote them a check for $50, and that was it. The people were stunned.

He did make a small donation to New York City upon his death.

JP Morgan is another example. He was, in the height of his power, the most powerful man in America. He also manipulated bond markets and other markets. He was an international financier and had a large degree of control over rail roads and actually just about everything. He controlled who would or would not be successful at his whim. He created AT&T, GE, and American Steel. He was a ruthless financier who was largely hated among the public in his day and as a result of his abuse of power many Federal Regulations were adopted and the Federal Reserve was created to prevent individuals like JP Morgan from having such single handed control over markets.

Andrew Carnegie is another example. Made is fortune in steel by controlling markets and eliminating competitors. He was initially a "friend" of the working man, but later began cutting wages and refusing to make is factories more save. His workers went on strike for better treatment and the result was a shooting to break the strike in which 4 people were murdered. he owned whole towns and kept thousands of people in poverty working in his mills through threat and intimidation and simply not offering any other alternatives.

He did later sell his company and donate most of his money away.

Then you have Rockefeller. Rockefeller said that his wealth was God given. Rockefeller was perhaps the most corrupt businessman of all time, and also the richest man in American history. Standard Oil was his company, and he used all manner of tactics to put every other oil company out of business. BY the height of his power he had an almost global monopoly on oil, accounting for about 90% of all oil sold in the world. He used oppressive tactics to put other men out of business, he controlled markets and was able to prevent others from getting access to things like transportation or barrels so they could not ship their oil. He would pay to make sure that trains and boats did not run as they were supposed to, to disrupt the business of others. He was involved in American interventions all over the world including Mexico, Nicaragua, and China. Literally millions of people died to make him the richest man in America.

As a result of his actions Teddy Roosevelt began the regulation of industry and splitting up of monopolies in America. His practices were extremely anti-competitive.

Now JFK. His father, Joseph Kennedy, began a millionaire by smuggling booze during Prohibition. He was involved in international crime and the American mafia. After Prohibition was over he went legit and became one of the most powerful families in America.

Those are just a few examples.



- Major General Smedley Butler 1933

All of the above you mentioned (except the major general) were robberbarons from generally the same period of our country. Bad examples, as (and you even mentioned) we reformed/created regulatory and antitrust laws in response to some of their actions. That was nearly 100 years ago! And, only about 150 years from teh founding of our country. Geez, cant a country go through growing pains? If anything, these would be examples of how we improved our 'elitist' society.
 
Cleopatra said:
Still you have no idea of what are you talking about.

Turkey is not consisted of Ottoman Turks only. In fact Ottoman turks are only a small percentage of the whole population.That's why analysts of the area are wondering if Turkey will exist in 50 years from now.

So the whole rambling of yours about Turkey is irrelevant.

Don't lecture a Greek about what sort of city Constantinople was.

Greeks were controlling the economy of the city until 1956.

Unless you composed this outrageous post just to flatter the guy who paid a visit to your site.

I never said anything about Ottoman Turks, you did! LOL :p

The guy is from Turkey, I was just comparied old world economies to new world economies and discussed his country because that's where he is from. None of the stuff you have said makes any difference to my point, which is in relation to the huger differences between ancient settled nations and new nations build on unexploited territory.

America and Australia had huge advantages over the rest of the developed world purely by the fact that they were countries formed on virgin territory. The implications of that should be obvious from an economic point of view. There was more work that needed to be done and more resourced with which to do it and the ability to start fresh and new without the trappings of old culture and old infrastructure to keep you down.
 
Charles Livingston said:


All of the above you mentioned (except the major general) were robberbarons from generally the same period of our country. Bad examples, as (and you even mentioned) we reformed/created regulatory and antitrust laws in response to some of their actions. That was nearly 100 years ago! And, only about 150 years from teh founding of our country. Geez, cant a country go through growing pains? If anything, these would be examples of how we improved our 'elitist' society.

The complaint against me was about wealth and corruption. I think that if you take a look at history you see that the two go hand in hand.

Keep in mind that when I talk about wealth I talk abtou wealth just like Andrew Carnege did, wealth is not what hard working people make by going to work every day and saving their money, I'm talking about real wealth, people who become the top 100 or 500 most wealthy and powerful men in a country.

I'm not talking about some shmuk that earns $200,000 year as a doctor or businessman, thats punk money, I'm talking about the real players, the Donald Trumps, Steve Forbes, Ross Perots, Warren Buffets, Bill Gates, etc.

Granted not everyone like that is corrupt or a bad person or has any major negative personal qualities, but its imposisble to get to those position without stepping on a few little guys.

Learn the history of the rise of Coka-Cola, there is another good example, the du Ponts, the Bush family, all examples of people who have done less than honerable things to get on top.

The majority of people who have made it to the top have had to do some less than honorable things, thats a fact.

Sure, you can go out and become upper middle class by following the rules and being a nice guy, duh, that's not what I'm talking about.

Look at Dick Cheney, another good example, total slime ball, worth hundreds of millions and one of the most powerful men in the world.

The 5 Waltons are still among the richest people in the world, in the American top 10, they all just inherited that money!

Donald Trump is a total slime ball, we've had some dealing with him down here in South Florida. I think that Gates is a good guy, but he's still been ruthless in business and a lot of good companies have been trashed in his wake and I don't think that all of it has been for the best of the consumer either. I also think though that monopolies do have some good qualities, the problem is that the people at the head of them gain too much power. If there were more community profit charing they could be a powerful tool for progress though.

The ancestors of the robber barrons are all still rich too, those dynasties just keep getting passed on.

Let's face is, the only reason that robber barrons are not dominating the world any more than what they are today is because fo legislation, strikes, protests, heroes like Teddy Roosevelt, and people standing up to abuse of economic power, whidh was not easy. Thousad of people died fighting these capitalist titans so that we could have a the freedom that we have today, instead of working in mine shafts for 12 hours a day for $5 a month.

Nothing we have today was given, it was all fought for.
 
You are a very jealous person. Anybody can be corrupt, your examples betray your bias. Everybody steps on somebody eventually, the question is whether it is advertant or not.

Do you have any examples of a society that actually exists that you do not find fault with? If not I suggest that you are a perpetual whiner.

The Waltons, sheesh.
 

Back
Top Bottom