Bunny explains to Mimi how to establish and maintain control over others via this (kind of) new thing called globalization. Is globalization the new colonialism? Will Pinky ever get that crayon off her head? For more information visit: www.pinkyshow.org
Video Rating: 4 / 5
@scones55555 get a life looser!! idiots like you really piss off!!
@naganab yeah and they are more smart than you accept!!
@stjimy cartoons for childish minds , grow up
@stjimy get a brain , leftish attitudes are piss easy
@naganab = more idiot crap!!
more pinky crap
Interesting comments, but Great Pinky.
My humble opinion.
No political system works as good as the idea or at best for very long (in the realm of time) because of some humans desire for power and luxury, however that is defined by the particular society or person. And as the population grows in each, the idea gets more corrupted and falls apart, takes a turn for the worse or is overthrown. It’s all redundant.
Not to say there aren’t things to work for, care about.
But, too many rats in a cage.
kick people out , wait a second.
Pouhaha Hahaha HAHAHAHAHA wait , POUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, that was a good one.
great job again cats!!!!!!!!!!
It is equally as scary if the people making these decisions of equality decide we shouldn’t have the right to use a grill. Or have the right to freedom of religion. Or the right to teach are own children. etc. etc. In America we have these rights because we are from this mindset but globally who decides. I will tell you. The ones who know how to control and influence. At least in the USA, we have the freedom to kick the people out who are in power and we have a constitution based on rights.
The majority of them aren’t staying poor though; India and China are both rising superpowers and they make up 1/3 of the world’s population.
The best way is to remove trade barriers and reduce taxation; therby putting more money into the economy and reducing the prices to give poor people more purchasing power.
Hmmm, of course, even though I have my ideas, there is no simple answer to economical problems we have today….
What would your suggestion be to make the world into a more fair and free society, and by free I mean that every individual has not only the right, but also the possibility to make their own choices. This is not normally the case if they are born poor….
In many parts of the world they then tend to stay poor (the majority of them), since their alternatives has been limited.
They are decided; their main problem with the government is that it uses too much force and is essentially stealing money through taxes. They believe its only legitimate job is protect people from the use of force or fraud by private entities.
The market is not getting any freer as we saw with the government bailouts, the stimulus package and the Bush tax “cuts”.
So they are undecided. They want less restrictions while they at the same time admit that there needs to be some government control. I question what happens where there is no such control, for example when the power of the private interests has convinced (through dinners and what not) the politicians that such control is a bad thing, thus let the “free market” decide…
My biggest problem is that I cannot see this free market, and the more “free” they make it, in reality less free it gets…
That’s anarcho-capitalism; not libertarianism. Libertarians want to keep law enforcement intact (althought with less laws to enforce) in order to prevent the use of force or fraud by private entities.
Also, can I give you an example of what I fear, even though I doubt it will ever happen?
Imagine if the police and the fire department was completely privatized…
So in this modern world, you would need money in other to be protected from the “bad guys”. It wasn’t a right you were born with, it was a right you’d have to pay for….
Same thing would apply to the your house if it caught fire.
Now you would maybe say that we are already paying for such a service, but it is a universal one…..
OKey, at least I think we agree on that, though I think bailing out these companies will only delay a problem instead of getting rid of it. You do realize that the reason to why these companies could get so great benefits from the government is because they have worked very hard to get it? Using many billions after billions in lobbying to persuade the politicians that the market should be more “open” and “free”, and thus lessen the politicians restrictions to the flow of money.
Im not accusing you of being a communist, communism is just a good example.
Yes, however all those people choose to put their money with particular buisinesses. If they choose risky ventures, like buying a house with a 120% loan, they and the company both agree to the risk. When the government is able to bail these out when the risk bites them, non-risky companies (who have been profiting less) suffer and fail. Bailing them out is what causes the _whole_ country to fail.
Second, if I had to guess, I think you are more in the libertarian area, where you mean state intervention and control over the market is a NO NO, and that ‘ideally’ everything should have been governed by the market, since the market always serves the consumer right?
Anyway that would be a very strong right wing way of thinking, at least from my country. If this is wrong then I apologize.
But if this is the way you (or anybody else here) think, you don’t seem to see the fundamental problem?
Okey, I want to simplify this.
We all want to make a useful contribution here right?
So lets just admit what we stand for and not stand for, and if I’m wrong in my description of you than correct me.
First of all I believe the real reason for todays economical problems, and the reason to why there are so many poor is because of the way the global economy works today.
So you could call me a socialist, but the American understanding of that word is very bizarre, so I’d prefer not.
Fine. But you wanted the government to create new jobs. The capitalist approach is for the government to take a “hands-off” approach with most economic matters.
So why couldn’t the world just let the “bad” ones fail, totally, and let new ones take their place?
The banks could only gamble because the government kept giving them money to lower interest rates. The fact that the government was willing to bail them out also reduced the consequences of failure.
Businesses only fail when people start spending money on other things. For every job lost to a failing business a new one is created by a successful business.
Ehm, I don’t “know” what you pre…….
I don’t what you predicted me to say.
But, “If they make bad decisions (or ‘gambles’), they are pushed out of buisiness by those who don’t.”
The problem here is that they are running so huge risks, with everyones money, that when they finally fail, it might end with half the country failing too (this isn’t an overstatement in some countries), and this forces the country’s government to bail them out, in one way or another…..
Can’t you see a problem with this.
And btw, I’m not a communist.