Ah, but the left kills too.
If the NPA kills a mayor or Barangay captain, do you care? And where do you list the mafia like killing of politicians and businessmen by their rivals?

The dirty little secret is that the left is not helping the poor. The success of the "asian tigers" are the reason for the embracing of globalization, even by former communist countries like China and VietNam.

The NPA is popular here because the poor cannot break the rich poor divide, and they are a symbol of popular resentment. But even our farmers children now go to Saudi to work instead of joining the NPA...

Yes, there is an active "left". They demonstrate all the time, but what exactly are they proposing? What have they actually done except complain? The dirty little secret is that more people are joining Protestant churches (whose solidarity helps in getting jobs and education) and the wealth religion groups than leftist parties.

As for Gloria, she is not a "rightist". She is a routine elitist, despite her father's socialist background. She backs the oligarchy of rich families in Manila. Bush has nothing to do with it.

So she allows imports of cheap veggies from the EU and China, which make it cheaper for poor people in Manila to eat. And much of our manufacturing system is undermined by cheap Chinese goods, helped by their undervalued currancy. This allows poor people to buy stuff, but stops local job creation.

As a result, the middle class cannot succeed here.
So our educated people work in Saudi, and the papers are filled with ads to become a nurse so you can work in the US or Canada (half our relatives live overseas).

Nope, there's no reason to rob the rich and give to the poor. The most functional solution is to simply stop robbing the poor. Given the rampant rise of corporate influence in Congress with no end in sight, they're already disenfranchised from the supposed authority and accountability that comes with their money being taken and spent.

"Wealth is obtained"... from speculation, a purely parasitic activity, given that it creates no wealth. I remember a top US cabinet member complaining already in a conference (late 1980's), that too many of the top US graduates, in business administration, only cared to join the ranks of the speculators tghe moment they came out of business school.

James, That's the most intelligent thing I think you've said yet. It does worry me, though, that arguments would arise to tell a substantial part of the population that the tax base "is not your money to spend." The point is precisely that it IS the money of those people, because they -- well, most of them -- have had a considerable hand in producing that money to begin with. What would you say to an increase in the 'progressiveness' in tax rates (lower rates for lower income, higher for higher), and a Carter/BushII -style 'rebate' to everyone (which would effectively nullify the tax in the lowest brackets)? A bureaucratic nuance perhaps, but also a protection of democratic principle.

The smartest means of resdistributing wealth would be not to take it in the first place.

Consider: The lowest earning 50% of the United States provides the government with 5% of the total net income tax revenue from personal income. The top 5% produce 35% and that number increases every year. What would happen if the US simply didn't tax the first $30k to $40k everyone makes? Remove that paltry burden from the people who really need the money more than the government does and see where that gets you. One, you get pretty close to ironclad support from the most populous segment of the population. Two, you give the lowest earners a shot at springboarding into a better economic strata by increasing their net income by an easy 20%. Three, when the government spends money doing something stupid, they can look at the huddled masses honestly and say "Hey, its not like we're spending YOUR money." Taxation may be thought of as a necessary burden for a society to finance itself, but when you take the long view, given all the money that is spent on programs to subsidize the poor, would it not be wiser simply to not impose a burden they're ill suited to bear?

Tom, I don't buy it. The stock market isn't free money? It is for me. I can use the gains to pay for whatever pleases me. The people who have done actual work to produce those profits never see this money. Who knows where they work or live? Chances are that most of them don't even have health care and can't pay for college for their kids. For all I know, my index funds include companies that rely on, for example, ores such as Tantalum that are mined in the Congo under slave conditions. Not much health care or college going on there. When I can stay rich without lifting a finger, relying purely on the sweat and blood of other people, that's what I would call 'radical redistribution of wealth.' I fully support the efforts on the left to destroy the worst aspects of that system of redistribution, and to make sure that economic gains get instead redistributed to more worthy causes: health, education, etc. I don't see Arroyo being much of a help with that.

Why would anyone want a communist regime? Where has one ever worked in the world. They should spend their time hunting down muslim terrorists.
They are the real infidels.

The people of the Philippines wanted desperately their indpendence from U.S.

Now that they have had it for many years they find that American style government requires an educated public.

Speak to any educated citizen and they want more than anything else to have their children come to America. What has happened to the idea of Indpendence?

Corruption, nepotism, and plain outright killing of opposition is rampart.

Could it be that the background of Philippine history will never permit it to grown into a
stable nation?

"my income from legalized theft far exceeds my income from work. Theft? I refer to my capital gains income, on a nice nest egg left to me by someone whose work I did not do. The income itself derives from work I also haven't done."

You *are* doing work - you have taken capital passed to you by someone, and are using it to drive the economy. The stock market isn't "free money" - it's cash used by businesses to buy capital goods, expand markets, etc. As long as you continue to "loan" some company your own cash, it's being used in a productive sense. Don't belittle the ability for family and friends to pass along accumulated capital to others. The alternatives are all pretty horrid, frankly.

Hey, why critique the magazine of this author? The article/opinion is right on and the argument is persuasive. Who cares where it is published or why? Stop trying to undermine legitimate criticism of Philippines flailing democracy. wooo I'm scared "do not trust them" Wonder if de Borja is DoD Psychological Operations staff. Or AFP propogandist.

Wealth comes from somewhere? I teach at a university, but my income from legalized theft far exceeds my income from work. Theft? I refer to my capital gains income, on a nice nest egg left to me by someone whose work I did not do. The income itself derives from work I also haven't done. And the bigger it gets, the faster it gets bigger. As for Einstein, I am prone to wonder how much progress he would have made on e=mcc if he had had to pay royalties up front for access to Newton's equations. Or if he had had to work at Walmart instead of a patent office. Or if he had been born in a Manila ghetto.

You have to stay in the Philippines particularly in the rural areas to know what's going on. People are afraid of the military and also the NPA. It's just like walking on a tightrope.

will jones, look out, the guys in white coats are coming, you idiot.

Eddie, wealth comes from somewhere. Unless you know about the gene that pops up every few years that allows someone to defecate gold bricks, somewhere back there, there's someone who busted their butt, put in the time, and had an investment flourish. Gates, Jobs, Trump, Buffett. They inherited nothing. Those who achieve that level of return on investment in labor are rare, but for every one of them, there's a million others who achieve a marginal fraction of their wealth, and a hundred million others who's lifelong work life provide them with a very comfortable existance. We're called the Middle Class. We didn't come into money, but we built a fairly enjoyable standard of living in the trenches. And we do not appreciate having the fruit of our effort taken from us and given out to deadbeats. And I stand by my belief that it isn't always money. Aside from my salary, my corporate provided health care, paid holidays and paid personal vacation time also count for something in my "personal wealth". It is not always the money, its the benefits and the perks. You get what you earn, and if you want it bad enough, you put in the time to get yourself where you get the reward you're after. I don't need millions or billions of dollars, but I do damned well at $50,000 a year.

"Wealth is obtained through productivity"

What incredible drivel. Most wealth is obtained through birth.

Productivity itself does not produce wealth but may maximize one's profit.

The real estate boom "created" so much wealth, not because of productivity, but because there is too much cash sloshing around. And when the pendulum swings back, what was the worth of such "created" wealth when it "disappears."

What's amazing in this thread is that the article is about humans being killed. And suddenly these deaths are seen as unimportant and a discussion of political and economic theory has taken its place.

And just to emphasize the moral bankruptcy of his position, Mr. Buchanan states that "money" isn't the issue.

I tell you what: if that's really the case, then what is the problem with redistributing the wealth so that the greatest number in society can pursue those truly important things that Mr. Buchanan so vehemently states are being reduced to monetary values.

I think it was Lenin who opined that foreign based Leftist sympathizers were "Useful idiots" Seems to be a lot of them here. I say, "whatever it takes Gloria".

Response to

Response to: "Wealth is obtained through productivity, through a social contract that dictates you get what you earn, and progress is measured by the climb through the hierarchy into greater realms of responsibility."

Currently, wealth is obtained from property ownership. Ownership of property is obtained from wealth. It is a self perpetuating cycle that benefits those who have wealth, or access to wealth, to begin with.

If wealth was truly obtained from productivity, then you would see greater gains for workers as their productivity has increase in the past several years. Unfortunately, the wealth gained from the hard work of a company's employees is inequitably distributed with a disproportionate amount going to those who did little to accomplish the gains, the shareholders. Involving workers in ownership of the production cycle, through cooperative development (ie. cooperatives or granting workers an interest in the company, even if they are unskilled workers), will more equitably balance the value of capital and labor in the global markets. Unfortunately, the issue is one of control. Rather than seek ways to develop consesus, corporations would rather rule their production with a very undemocratic iron fist. There is a constant tension between democratic institutions and capitalist institution like corporations. This tension is ever increasing as investment moves away from shareholder based corporations, with their very limited democractic processes, to private equity firms, which have no democratic processes. Our economy is a social institution, not some sort of natural process, and I find it disturbing that we are willing to press hard for democracy in our social institution, such as government, but not in our scoio-economic institutions.

Sadly, the debate on how to economically develop gets bogged down in paradigms that pit labor against capital when, in fact, we should seek ways to encourage labor empowerment through participation in capital development. Sadly, unskilled labor is seen as a commodity and not what it is, human beings attempting

Many of the problems in the Philippines stems from a continued concentration of capital in the hands of a small amount of landholders/business owners who also happen to be politicians. President Arroyo's economic policies have done little to alleviate these problems. The land reform programs from the 1990s aimed at alleviating many of these problems and have ended under her watch. Economic gains in the Philippines depend on a very dehumanizing program of labor export that tears families apart, undercutting the most important social institution, the family.

I don't believe that people are predisposed to be lazy. However, if there is little incentive to participate in the economy or other social institutions, then laziness may be one result. In the Philippines, though, I have been heartened to see that the opposite has happened. People are working hard to stand up for justice. The actions of violent extremists and their apologists on both sides, in the NPA and the Government, have been the focus of the media. Whats lost in the story is the hard work of law abiding citizens who stand up for their rights in constitutionally protected expressions of speach and through participation in the political processes, only to have those rights suppressed by radical political interests on the left and the right.

frank collins: "wait until the next election and do your best to get your party in control. this is how it works in a democracy. get used to it." You must be thinking of the Allende Chilian example, mustn't you?... Do we need to draw the list of similar cases in the last century?

"by simple definition is the social control of property and wealth. It allows us to build societies that benefit the larger group. If Buchanan's message is taken at its face, then the ultimate existence would be as lone hunter/gatherers."

Ok, now that you've established yourself as an idiot, lets correct this misconception. Wealth is obtained through productivity, through a social contract that dictates you get what you earn, and progress is measured by the climb through the hierarchy into greater realms of responsibility. I won't say there aren't flaws in the Capitalist social model. Bureaucracy and groupthink are endemic in any human social model, expressed in the corporate structure as "middle management". The ability to shuffle off accountability is its greatest weakness, with favoritism, nepotism and cabalism in close second. There are no loners in the Capitalist model, but there are a LOT of mercenaries.

"The great leaps in development of human society occured because we were able to work together, not because we all worked as individuals."

Horsefeathers. Innovators were often notorious loners. Edison was NOT a team player (in fact, he was a sheister, thief, and a control freak), the Wright Brothers had ONE assistant. Goddard, Oberth and the others who birthed modern rocketry were individual hobbyists. Westinghouse was a tyrant, Tesla was a real piece of work when his mind started going, and lets not start on Howard Hughes.

"There has to be a system in the first place ro there is nothing in which to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Without socialist institutions such as a free public school system, much of what we take for granted would not exist."

Wrong again. If this were the case, then the United States would never have existed. The Founders were all privately educated in a nation of colonies where the average education never bothered to include literacy. Public free education is actually a VERY new element of human society. It has NOT produced many great minds because of the fervent desire not to see any child "left behind". When you force a system to teach to the minimum, those who can achieve the maximum must do so on their own initiative.

"Without the support of society, our Shakespeares, Edisons, DesCartes and Flemings never would have produced anything."

Wrong again. Edison was practically a migrant worker, working odd jobs to support his research until it was worth something. Einstein worked in a patent office until his first paper was published. Tesla was much the same. Seems to me most of the great names in history were self made men and women who rose above the mediocre on their own accord.

You haven't defended Socialism very well, Socialism. Feel free to play again.

I made the previous post

response to: William Morris (4:55)

A Hong Kong financial group just named the Phil. as the #1 corrupt country in Asia. Arroyo's excuse was that she's made some changes, which you alluded to. To a certain extent I concur that there have been some improvements. But most of them are somewhat marginal. The system is so corrupt that it makes the Republican "culture of corruption" look legit. So you're comparing apples and oranges when you say that there's poverty in America. I've been to South Philadelphia, SE DC, South Chicago, etc., but I'd never seen a whole country that essentially looks like one of those places. For those who haven't been to the Phil., the average salary is about $4-$5 per day. Right, per day. Secondly, yes, civil liberties are under attack in America. But again, you're comparing apples and oranges. It's very rare in America for opposition leaders within the system, to be murdered. I don't concur 100% with the opposition groups in Phil., and particularly those that don't work within the system. And you're right in that the gov't can't be blamed for all of a country's woes. Personal responsibilty plays a role. That said, when the UN steps in because the current administration fails to take action, that's a major event. Bottom line: Arroyo and Bush Jr. are both as crooked as dog's hind leg.

Am an expat living in Manila t epast 4 years. Most of my friends are Filipinos coming from the business & civil society. I love this country and have taken the time to understand the issues that confront the people here. The opposition here is ready to blame the Arroyo gov't. for just about everything that can go wrong. It isn't uncommon to blame the gov't. for storms and earthquakes!! Thats how ridiculous it is! I have never heard the opposition give Arroyo credit for all the economic, political and judicial strides forward since she assumed the presidency. I am an impartial observer and am privy to all the arguments. I work in a multinational fiance company and regularly review analysis of the conditions in the country and have to say, the country has grown leaps and bounds; Sure there is poverty. Sure there is room for improvement. Isn't there poverty in America? Aren't civil liberties constantly attacked in America? There is a communist insurgency in this country that has summarily executed, former members, police and civilians. How about justice for them too? And more often than not, the gov(t and military is blamed for all of these killings!

response to veritas (4:04)

It's off topic, but I hope John Howard loses in the next Australian election. I've met some cool people from Australia and New Zealand, but I guess it's the rightwing-extremist Anglophiles who keep electing him. Howard's comments linking Obama to terrorists was 100% unacceptable. It's a little bit funny-would Howard have much such comments if Obama were white, or if his mother weren't white? I doubt it. Howard's already far behind in the polls, so he has bigger worries than a Black dude becoming the American president.

Not at my uni in Australia, they're all hyperglobalists, have no clue what's happening in the world.

response to Tom Tuason (3:04 AM)

I have for several years, and there's plenty of blame to go around. Gloria and her Con cronies haven't done much good. But when: a) the opposition can't unite and put up a decent candidate to beat her, and b) most people would rather watch "big brother" instead of take political action, the situation won't change by itself.

Re: Filipino military kills the Left

You have to live in the Philippines and not just visit it for a week or a month. You have to live the life of a Filipino in the Philippines rahter than just read about what is supposed to be happening in the Philippines. Otherwise, I don't think one will really have an objective opinion about the situation. What about the raids made by the NPAs on police detachments and outposts where they killed the policemen, what about their so called revolutionary taxes on hardworking farmers inthe provinces threatening with execution if they fail to pay? What about their summary executions on policemen, military personnel whom they have convicted in their own courts?

My wife is from Cebu Philippines, In my 10 years of marriage it gets more currupt. There is no work there. Gloria said she wanted rural kids looking at a P.C. instead of a water bufulo's butt in a field when She took over for Estrada. She has done well against terrorism but poverty has gotten worse under her watch. The blame game continues and everytime I go I always have to pay some official off since I am from the U.S.A. I hope my 3 inlaw teachers can get out and work here. The Philippines make more $ on workers abroad remmiting money than their economy. She also vowed to fight corruption but that's a laugh

That's because "the war on terror" is every ruling party's excuse to build authoritarianism.

response to Will Jones (8:58 PM)

You make some valid points. The Catholic Church has opposed every major scientific breakthrough in world history. It's simply impossible for a country to flourish when it's controlled by such dogmatic, antiquated ideology.

response to Frank Collins (1:10 PM)

Your response there is a little bit extremist and unfounded. The choice isn't really between "terrorists and conservatives." Murdering legitimate members of the opposition is unacceptable in a democracy. If Cons were strictly murdering "terrorists," the UN wouldn't have deemed the actions as problematic. Terrorism is definitely a problem in the Phil., but the root of the problem is corruption and poverty (a consequence of the former). President Arroyo seems to have taken a page out of President Bush's book on corruption and fascism. Rightwing-extremist Republicans and conservatives elsewhere just don't get it: lying, cheating, and stealing don't justify election wins. America finally woke up and ousted the Republican "culture of corruption" in the House and Senate. In '08, the White House will follow.

It simply cracks me up when Marxist cry-babies like Ms. Gloria say that the left is taking a "pummeling", and then in her next thought she says that communist states like China are flooding markets with cheap goods lol. Nothing like a healthy dose of capitalism! Communism is a perversion and is responsible for more deaths in human history than even Nazism. Communism is responsible for 150,000,000 human deaths last century alone and women like Gloria want to try it again, sort of like curing Smallpox and then saying you want to unleash it again because maybe it won't kill as many people next time. The "pummeling" part does interest me, however. What weapons were used? What did the radical left do to deserve such a pummeling, hmmm?

by simple definition is the social control of property and wealth. It allows us to build societies that benefit the larger group. If Buchanan's message is taken at its face, then the ultimate existence would be as lone hunter/gatherers. The great leaps in development of human society occured because we were able to work together, not because we all worked as individuals. There has to be a system in the first place ro there is nothing in which to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Without socialist institutions such as a free public school system, much of what we take for granted would not exist. Without the support of society, our Shakespeares, Edisons, DesCartes and Flemings never would have produced anything.

Don't start dragging Goldwater through this. I don't think the Philippine regime is defending liberty, unless you mean the unfettered ability to do whatever you can get away with; as in GWBush, Enron, Exxon, and Halliburton, Walmart.

Goldwater was an honest man. He though Nixon should've died in prison.

Which prominent western democracy and proponent of the White is Right wing of civilization, occupied of the Philippines from 1898?

Notice the economics of this situation. The left in the Philippines is communist or socialist and many of their economic ills are due to unfair trade practices of "Communist" China.

yes, first kick out the corrupt Catholic Church and then the corrupt greedy multi-national corporations and then the Philippines will have a future.

Western democracy kicks so much butt... I get really sad when I read articles about how third world countries struggle with sham democracies and rubber-stamped dictators, even if they do happen to be former Georgetown SFS students like me. :D

I notice that former colonies of Spain have a particularly difficult time making the transition to any relatively serious attempt at a democracy, what with their traditions of paternalism and all. Costa Rica is a really interesting exception to most of the rules that apply, most likely because they were far from any center of Spanish colonial governance.

Say what you want about the United States's system, but it seems like it does a pretty good job of keeping people enfranchised (or, at least, alive... for the most part).

Want to solve a Filipino "insurgency?" Expropriate the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church and deport all its hierarchy of pedophile priests. Whiggism succeeded for a time in America...read Jefferson and Paine. King/Papist Tories must once more be excised from the USA. If PI does as well they too shall flourish. Bush has worked for Rockefeller for four generations...when Standard Oil was built on unredressed murder and arson. Rockefeller is the Vatican Bank. The "latifundium" is who we were sent to shore up in VN after the RC CIA murdered JFK. Rome yet rules the Phillipines. Babylon shall fall in a day...may that day soon come.

To Richard H. Burns:

There's an ideology out there which espouses your very line of reasoning, i.e. the "good guys" killing off all the "bad guys" until global harmony is achieved, and it's called fascism. If you're looking for intellectual validation allow me to recommend to you a seminal text of which you may have heard. It's called "Mein Kampf".

you are correct glen he wasn't agianst personal initiative. But in a society that provides for you no matter what you cannot help feeling lazy and not wanting to work. Communism and socialism are not the same in some ways. communism uses terrorism and sycological means to control the masses while socialism utilizes the system of legestlator and taxation (much like our congress and senate)

I also agree with jeff, if the social programs were removed the relief on the defecit would be great. another thing to downsise would be the department of education, if the department were to be removed that also would help. in the early days of the nation many of our fore fathers were broght up in the care of the private academies.
the public education system was only used in the northern states and originated in masatchusets with the "ye old deluder satan act" made by the puritans. the act stated that a town of fifty families or so would hire a teacher to educate the children

bush is rich because he was born into a rich family, it had nothing do do with him, it was all daddy.

socialism is lame welfare is lame.
welfare is for those who are to lazy to work what we need to do is demolish all the social welfare programs.why shopuld the tax payer pay for sum lazy bum who cant function properly because of his drug addiction

Richard Burns apologia for the excesses of the Arroyo government draws on the Goldwater logic that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. He fails to realize that in emulating the tactics and barbarities of our enemies, we become as they are, and both our liberty and security are made more fragile. It also gives rise to what we have seen the current US Administration condone--torture, secret renditions, Soviet style tribunals and an abrogation of the very rule of law we claim it is our mission to defend. If we lose sight of why we proclaim to be a morally superior form of government, we in fact lose the right to proclaim our actions to be just. Lawful behavior is not inspired by lawlessness--have you ever bothered to actually read the Bill of Rights, the Federalist papers or the international Declaration of Human Rights?

We see the tired old slander by the right here that we saw time and time again in the past. They label any leftist opposition as terrorists. The conservative mother state of the Third Reich used this tactic to great effect, as did the Reagan administration. Look at today's article in the Post on the El Mozote massacre in El Salavador in 1981. Reagan promptly called the leftist opposition communists and terrorists to justify his conservative agenda of lies and murder. The real terrorists are on the right. They just use the armed forces to carry out their terrorism campaigns. The right views elections simply as a means to power. If the elections turn out the wrong way for conservatives, they typically try to subvert the electoral process.

Look at Chile. Allende won fair and square. Instead of giving him his chance to ruin the Chilean economy and discredit his economic policies, the conservative Nixon administration orchestrated a coup. They even assassinated the head of the Chilean army, Gen. Schneider, because he refused to order a military coup. He actually believed in democracy. So he died. And in Florida in 2000, Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris rigged the election by making Voting While Black a crime with their "felon voter" list.

Look at our country. Political violence here is overwhelmingly from the right. It started with the forerunner of the modern GOP, the Klan. Then true conservative Timothy McViegh continued the tradition in Oklahoma City. Most recently we saw th conservatives beating anti-war protesters during run up to war Vietraq. Protesters who turned out to have been right all along. But smeared as commies and terrorist supporters by the right. Typical conservative tactics. Maybe we need to fight fire with fire.

If anyone listening or reading knows the history of tariffs in the US and arounf the world, much can be accomplished for American workers by re-inventing the tariffs on products sold to us by other countries who keep their citizens in abject poverty. Tariffs help both the buyer and the producer nations by forcing fair competition and increasing pay levels....more earned, more to spend, etc. For many scores of years, most US spending was funded by these teriffs, up and including through WWII. Outsourcing is a direct result of the elimination of US tariffs on foreign goods and services, in addition to a few other items like making US companies move to foreign territory to avoid oversight and taxes (Halliburton, for example).

The current situation in the Philippines is very complicated. There are a lot of loose firearms, private militias and hungry killers for hire roaming around. The deaths of activists are very alarming and must be investigated. But its dangerous to just overwhelmingly point the finger at Arroyo. The left has done their share of purging their ranks of dissenters and murdering policemen and soldiers who are just doing their jobs to feed their family. And yes I believe there should a healthy opposition to the current government to keep the country becoming a one-party nation. Activism is needed to keep officials in check and to give everyone a fair voice. But it has to be done that it keeps the country going forward and not regress to the dark 1970's and 1980's years.

Rampant corruption and social indifference are mainly to be blamed to for the sorry state of affairs in the Philippines, not globalization. The inept bureaucratic system in the country hinders production, thus keeping Filipino businesses and workers behind their Chinese/Thai/Vietnamese counterparts. It's ironic that the Chinese, in all it's Socialist glory, are very good capitalists, better than the Filipinos at least. For example, in the 1970's, Japanese and Thai marine biologists and rice researchers came to the Phil. to learn aquaculture and farming. Now, the Philippines import rice from Thailand!! d'oh!

"Buchanan,
There is no evidence that it is the most intelligent and most qualified people who succeed economically. Many prominent artists and scientists lived their entire lives in abject poverty. Only now we recognize their brilliance. In contrast, G.W.Bush is the president and is very wealthy. So much for Social Darwinism."

A scientist is someone who's wealth comes from the knowledge they strive to attain.

An artist finds meaning in the works they create.

A politician and businessman finds his success in maximizing the gains made through every opportunity to advance.

Tell me how any of those three people are failures, provided they find in their work the ability to provide for themselves?

Boiling everything down to a dollar amount is very superficial of you. The one consistent truth is this: NONE of those three people should have to exert themselves above and beyond the call of their duty to themselves in order to carry the weight of the useless, people who have nothing to offer society but another mouth to feed. Cut the deadweight and leave them simply dead.

Erin,
The common argument is that China is keeping its currency low not for outsourcing but to maintain high levels of exports. They are sometimes related but distinct patterns. An artificially low currency might make a company slightly more likely to relocate to China, but labor costs are lower in third-world countries regardless of monetary policy. In any event, the outsourcing phenomenon, while important, is not as nearly as important to China as its exports.

Glen,

China is subsidizing industry and can therefore sell products below the cost of production. The United States does this with agricultural products. While this is technically illegal under WTO stipulations global powers can get away with while poor countries cannot. China and India are both artificially devalueing their currency in order to attract outsourcing. The current success of these nations cannot be attributed soley to free market capitalism.

The poverty levels in India and China are not decreasing. While capitalist reforms increase the per capita this is an average. Rural poor actually been harmed by globilization as the result of inflation. While an influx of foreign money may increase consumption of German automobiles it does not signifigantly impact the consumption of domestically produced rice.

Buchanan,
There is no evidence that it is the most intelligent and most qualified people who succeed economically. Many prominent artists and scientists lived their entire lives in abject poverty. Only now we recognize their brilliance. In contrast, G.W.Bush is the president and is very wealthy. So much for Social Darwinism.

Bob,
Read more Marx. Start with Das Kapital. Marx was not against intiative he was against individuals profiting from other people's labor on the basis of ownership.

This blame game has not stopped since I left 30 years ago. Most players in the Philippine politics and media and the Church tend to look at others as the cause of the poverty and misery there. There great cultural and structural problems in the Philippines that have not been address.

There is a saying "The more they change the more they remain the same".

Filipinos are the "Irish" of the 21st century the good once are leaving

"However, the previous government's corruption is what led to the coup and the most vocal supporters of the coup were the educated and middle-class residents around Bangkok"

Sounds like 1930's Germany. Fortunately no right wing government took over and started killing it's opponents,though, was there?

And China isn't exactly a beacon of capitalism, with its state controlled finances and unions and closed borders to imports, but if Walmart loves them, America loves them. Talk about supplying the commies with the rope to hang ourselves, take a look at where America shops and Bush borrows money! Funny how Americans can have the largest socialised farm system in the world, massive subsidies to business and complain about the communist hordes!
History has shown that right wing governments, from Hitler to Pinochet to Somosa to Marcos to Saddam and the shah have no more compunction against killing those who disagree with them than any communist government. They just have better access to American funding.

"Hugo Chavez is the clarion of a new age in the western hemisphere. Socialism is the only democratic economic system in existence."

What a sad, pathetic creature you are. Socialism is welfare, redistributing wealth to assure the incompetent survive on the sweat of the capable. If you want to follow that mongrel to the public trough, feel free to emigrate. I prefer a world where I can stand for myself, fight for myself, and succeed and exceed if I have the chance. I'd rather die for a shot at the golden ring than live in a welfare que.

please excuse the poor grammar

America isn't a democracy any more. to day if you were to ask a kid in school what a communist is they would say somthing totaly wrong. a communist is a person that believe all problems are caused by private property and personal initiative. if you read about the transendetalist groups in the 1800's, you would have found that they attempted a perfect society believing that man selfishness would be overcomed by cleansing his nature through the proper food and exercise. but somthing went wrong and they soon fell apart.

Now Karl Marx the father of communism was against capitalism self initiative and dare i say the protestent work ethic. but what you may not know is that his best friends father owned a factory. and in order to support marx and his hypothosis, he would have to work in his father capotolistic factory. Who would have thought that communism at first was supported by capitalism. HA, now thats ironic

There is only one way to handle a communist insurgency, and that way is how Wyatt Earp handled the Clanton Gang in Arizona Territory back in the 1800s. Just like the Clantons, communists don't care about the laws of a civil society. They, the terrorists simply murder, destroy and lay waste to anything that gets in their way. And if they are muslim, they are even more terrible, committing unspeakable acts against anyone they don't like.

The good side cannot let the laws of civilized society keep it from dealing effectively with the bad side, the bad side usually taking advantage of the constraints of the laws of civilized society. If the good side does not actively seek to destroy the bad side by whatever means possible, there is no hope of returning to the regular lawful day-to-day discourse of society that the bad side is seeking to destroy, the bad side using that destruction as a tool to come to power.

In short, the tools of both sides may seem the same, but only the good side seeks to destroy those wrecking havoc on civilized society. The bad side seeks to destroy all authority, tools and institutions of that civilized society. Thats how one tells the difference between the two. In times of turmoil all western oriented societies could use a lot of Old West type policing and justice. The real test and art in the practice of western style civilized society is being able to return, once again, to the rules of civilized society once the crisis is over. Once one side had achieved victory, knowing when to stop the killing once the other side has been destroyed, if society returns to civilized, lawful behavior, may tell the tale of who the bad guys really were in the conflict.

China has also flooded the US and the rest of the world with inexpensive products. The US has lost most of its shoe makers and small farms in the USA have consolidated into large enterprises that can still compete. Unemployment in the US is low and poverty is decreasing in India and China. Capitalism (globalization?) requires competition and China and India have shown that they can compete with the best and win. When the left turns to politics in order to frustrate the advance of capitalism, then they only prolong the inevitable transition - leaving their nation years behind more flexible governments who adjust and even stimulate free markets.

The workers of the world have had enough. All you have to do to know that is to talk to large segments of the working population which I have done, as editor of New York City's Greenwich Village Gazette.

Hugo Chavez is the clarion of a new age in the western hemisphere. Socialism is the only democratic economic system in existence.

Thomas Jefferson invested in a unique Socialist commune begun by a Scottish woman and friend of the Marquis De LaFayette, Frances Fitzgerald, here in the United States in the early 19th century.

It was Jefferson's Vice President Aaron Burr who killed Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist and First Secretary of the Treasury, who pioneered Capitalism in America.

Unless the Powers that be tend to the needs of the disenfranchised, The United States will face a more violent revolution than did Louis the 16th of France in the 18th century. Even Theodore Roosevelt said this in his 1912 Bullmoose Presidential outing.