Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

RobbyG wrote:Now thats a fine, lean, and above all, a strong Arabian stud. SOLD.

I have some democracy to offer in exchange. I even put some civil rights with it.

Do we have a deal?

sorry but the yankees decide what happens not just in the middle east but in the whole world

rudeboy wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Now thats a fine, lean, and above all, a strong Arabian stud. SOLD.

I have some democracy to offer in exchange. I even put some civil rights with it.

Do we have a deal?

sorry but the yankees decide what happens not just in the middle east but in the whole world

Jan Kees is a Dutch name. Just as Wall Street in Manhattan is with Dutch origins. The Hudson river is founded by Henry Hudson. A Dutch fella. They say, who owns Wall-street is the one who owns the world, right?

Mate, didn't you know already...we OWN(ed) it all. Well not all...

http://www.historyconfidential.com/2009 ... ll-street/

RobbyG wrote:

rudeboy wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Now thats a fine, lean, and above all, a strong Arabian stud. SOLD.

I have some democracy to offer in exchange. I even put some civil rights with it.

Do we have a deal?

sorry but the yankees decide what happens not just in the middle east but in the whole world

Jan Kees is a Dutch name. Just as Wall Street in Manhattan is with Dutch origins. The Hudson river is founded by Henry Hudson. A Dutch fella. They say, who owns Wall-street is the one who owns the world, right?

Mate, didn't you know already...we OWN(ed) it all. Well not all...

http://www.historyconfidential.com/2009 ... ll-street/

Are you posting from "a cafe" in Amsterdam" ?

arniegang wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

rudeboy wrote:
sorry but the yankees decide what happens not just in the middle east but in the whole world

Jan Kees is a Dutch name. Just as Wall Street in Manhattan is with Dutch origins. The Hudson river is founded by Henry Hudson. A Dutch fella. They say, who owns Wall-street is the one who owns the world, right?

Mate, didn't you know already...we OWN(ed) it all. Well not all...

http://www.historyconfidential.com/2009 ... ll-street/

Are you posting from "a cafe" in Amsterdam" ?

Hahaha. That a 'coffeeshop' to get humble from. I'm rollin' ere!

Allright, more than enough laughs than is good for me, so back on topic: Why is there no Arab democracy?

I spotted this:

Where oil dominates, there is little wealth creation through investment and risk-taking, for why take risks when there are steady profits to be made at no risk?
And then there are the other grim dimensions of the “paradox of plenty,” such as the boom-and-bust cycles that go with dependence on primary commodities, as well as the more general tendency for windfall mineral rents to smother or preempt the development of industry and agriculture (the so-called Dutch Disease). These consequences are only avoided when vigorous market economies and well developed, accountable states and taxation systems are in place before oil revenues flood in (as for example in Norway and Britain)

So, the point becomes clear. Oil is nice to have when you like lazy. But when productivity and innovation is concerned, you don't want oil. Unless, of course, you utilize oil revenue as secondary income like the Norwegians and British do. So to keep your society sharp and competitive aswell as the wealthiest country on earth, per capita (Norway).

Still not convinced why government companies like DEWA and its customer service is rude and inefficient? There you go.

Dutch disease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

and what are you still doing on DF Robby? I thought you were done with us here on arabland

RobbyG wrote:Allright, more than enough laughs than is good for me, so back on topic: Why is there no Arab democracy?

I spotted this:

Where oil dominates, there is little wealth creation through investment and risk-taking, for why take risks when there are steady profits to be made at no risk?
And then there are the other grim dimensions of the “paradox of plenty,” such as the boom-and-bust cycles that go with dependence on primary commodities, as well as the more general tendency for windfall mineral rents to smother or preempt the development of industry and agriculture (the so-called Dutch Disease). These consequences are only avoided when vigorous market economies and well developed, accountable states and taxation systems are in place before oil revenues flood in (as for example in Norway and Britain)

So, the point becomes clear. Oil is nice to have when you like lazy. But when productivity and innovation is concerned, you don't want oil. Unless, of course, you utilize oil revenue as secondary income like the Norwegians and British do. So to keep your society sharp and competitive aswell as the wealthiest country on earth, per capita (Norway).

Still not convinced why government companies like DEWA and its customer service is rude and inefficient? There you go.

Dutch disease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

raidah wrote:and what are you still doing on DF Robby? I thought you were done with us here on arabland

Sporting the intellectual challenge with a little satire for distraction. Care to join the debate?

RobbyG wrote:

raidah wrote:and what are you still doing on DF Robby? I thought you were done with us here on arabland

Sporting the intellectual challenge with a little satire for distraction. Care to join the debate?

you call this a debate? and by the way, the answer to ur question is simple. change takes time. especially when it involves giving freedom to people who are not used to having it. its like giving millions to a poor uneducated person. they will fck it up in no time.

it took time for the US to go from keeping slaves to giving equal rights. it took us time in europe to go from having kings to giving the right to vote.

and by the way, if you think of the people of the UAE a few decades ago and how they are, especially in dubai now, they are catching up fast. maybe not always the right way, but fur sure life here is not static by any means

raidah wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

raidah wrote:and what are you still doing on DF Robby? I thought you were done with us here on arabland

Sporting the intellectual challenge with a little satire for distraction. Care to join the debate?

you call this a debate?

It is now, thanks to you.

Of course there is progress. I never said there wasn't. But I was reading this analysis about absence of Democracy in Arab states in combination with a book from Dominque Moisi - The Geopolitics of Emotion, and the lag of Arab countries in the globalization cycle. Its fascinating to see how politics, combined with economic development and religion can hamper liberty, rights and prosperity.

So thats what I like to discuss hon.

Be nice will ya. You know I luv you. lol

I believe democracy was invented bcz governments knew they will always be against there ppl and they will always complain ! I mean ,comaan how hard is it to please your locals and give them what thy should have so the won't complain ?you are fighting so hard for your governments to feed and satisfy you, why ? aren’t those ppl the ones you elected ?the ones you trusted.

Another point is that yes democracy is there but only to a level that those governments sets ! Its been hundred of years and you are still fighting begging for your needs ..

what is the use of freedom of speech when no one is lessening ?

good luck.

shafique wrote:Interesting article - thanks for posting.

It is interesting to look at the instances of democracy at play in the region over the recent(ish) past.

Iran had a popular elected leader in Mossadegh - and he had a popular mandate to improve the lot of Iranians, and quite rightly wanted to retain more of Iran's resources for Iran (i.e. take more control over oil). He was uncermoniously deposed - but not by the people.

Melika - did I say Iran was an Arab country?

I just put out there the historical facts that democracy in the region has been suppressed - and suppressed not because of the people in the countries, but because of outside interests.

What happened to Mossadegh is relevant, as it fits into a pattern and may help to explain why other countries in the region (who also have oil, and happen to be Arab) have suffered similar fates.

In fact, I started by a non-Arab instance precisely to bring out the point that it may not be the ethnicity of the population or leadership that is the issue - it may have to do with whether the country has oil or not.


Ok - it looks like you guys are having an interesting discussion without me (you'll note I only listed the events and didn't really give an explicit opinion... I just seeded the discussion).

Cheers,
Shafique

Oi Shaf

back to politics and religion for you matey



Seriously do you want me to transfer this to politics ??

Democracy is a political government either carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people". This i got from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Ok so can someone tell me how England or USA is a democracy state? Democracy as per its meaning says bunch of people who are elected "representatives of the people". Ok fine.

How the hell did George BUSH represent all the people of USA? Ok fine majority of the people voted for him, but what about the other half who didnt, who represents their voice in the government?

Same goes for Gordon Brown, I certainly didnt vote for him yet he came into power and what is he doing for me now that he is in power? In fact he is targetting the muslim population more like it so shows how good UK democracy is

fact is there is no difference between democracy and a dictatorship. You will get some good governments, some bad and same goes for dictatorships i.e bad and good.

fine hitler was a maniac but at that time the guy did alot for germany and for his people, which is by giving them job, bread, and shetler and took germany from the depression to being a force to reckon with.

DEMOCRACY hmmmmm

Norway has oil too,

see what they are doing with oil...

rudeboy wrote:Democracy is a political government either carried out directly by the people (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (Representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people". This i got from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Ok so can someone tell me how England or USA is a democracy state? Democracy as per its meaning says bunch of people who are elected "representatives of the people". Ok fine.

How the hell did George BUSH represent all the people of USA? Ok fine majority of the people voted for him, but what about the other half who didnt, who represents their voice in the government?

Same goes for Gordon Brown, I certainly didnt vote for him yet he came into power and what is he doing for me now that he is in power? In fact he is targetting the muslim population more like it so shows how good UK democracy is

fact is there is no difference between democracy and a dictatorship. You will get some good governments, some bad and same goes for dictatorships i.e bad and good.

fine hitler was a maniac but at that time the guy did alot for germany and for his people, which is by giving them job, bread, and shetler and took germany from the depression to being a force to reckon with.

DEMOCRACY hmmmmm

I agree. The US and perhaps even the UK show not to be true democracies anymore, at least in my opinion. There is to much craving for power and no term limits for elected officials. Also the corporatization of America is a real issue against the people voice.

I said it before in another topic, but I say it again. I think Northwest Europe is a better example. Without being nationalistic, pick the Netherlands as an example. Its really low corrupted here. At most, strategic politics but no 'craving for power' at play.

RobbyG wrote:

sorry but the yankees decide what happens not just in the middle east but in the whole world

Jan Kees is a Dutch name. Just as Wall Street in Manhattan is with Dutch origins. The Hudson river is founded by Henry Hudson. A Dutch fella. They say, who owns Wall-street is the one who owns the world, right?

Mate, didn't you know already...we OWN(ed) it all. Well not all...

http://www.historyconfidential.com/2009 ... ll-street/

The Dutch invented modern finance - the stock market and central bank - and were on the verge of dominating Europe at one stage. The Dutch whooped our (the Brits) in wars and had a superior navy.

When we worked out that we couldn't beat them, we staged a royal coup and invited a Dutchman to become king of England. William of Orange became King (well, ruled with his wife Mary) - was a staunch Protestant and went over to Ireland and causes some trouble which is still celebrated today by the Protestants there.

As a result, the Brits got the Bank of England, 'modern finance' (borrowing from its own people) - could more effectively finance wars and effectively this led to it seeing off the next big rival - France. The rest is history.

For a long while the Dutch had the monopoly on trade in the East - with the East India Company (dutch one, which was formed two years after the British one) dominating trade with India. Holland also had dominance further east in Indonesia etc. (IIRC)

But, their time came and went, just like the British, Portugese, Spanish and now the US - (and let's not forget that Italy and Greece were once super powers - Rome and Greek empires - now look at them!)

As for Norway - look at what can be done with oil when there isn't outside interference! Perhaps if Mossadegh had been allowed to do what Norway does, Iran would be free-er and richer today??

(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Where did you conclude that? I don't know what agenda you work on, but you better not insult me like that. I really object against such dishonest statements.

Religion might have an influence in the absence of democracy in the Middle East. As you know I'm generally against religious influences in politics. But to say I'm itching to blame Muslims?

What in the world are you talking about Shafique?

RobbyG wrote:

shafique wrote:
(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Where did you conclude that? I don't know what agenda you work on, but you better not insult me like that. I really object against such dishonest statements.

The operative words were 'don't want to confuse eh' - (eh = event horizon) and also the ' ' at the end.

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

shafique wrote:
(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Where did you conclude that? I don't know what agenda you work on, but you better not insult me like that. I really object against such dishonest statements.

The operative words were 'don't want to confuse eh' - (eh = event horizon) and also the ' ' at the end.

Well, from my perspective the eh (instead of E.H. initials) was more like an 'aye' or éh confirmation...

For the normal reader, like me, who doesn't know your issues with DF member, Event Horizon, this might give an entirely wrong perspective on me. Which I clearly objected to.

Anyway, good to know your allegation wasn't directed at me. Although your reply on my quote surely implied that message.

Forgiven.

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

As a result, the Brits got the Bank of England, 'modern finance' (borrowing from its own people) - could more effectively finance wars and effectively this led to it seeing off the next big rival - France. The rest is history.

I would like to correct some of the injustice you portray about my heritage.

First of all, modern finance in Amsterdam, as in the first stock market and first succesful joint-equity limited liability trading Company (VOC) also known as the United East Indies Company, was supported by the Amsterdam Central Bank (Amsterdamse Wisselbank) with deposits from merchants to maids.

Every deposit was fully backed by gold instead of the English and French (John Law, Banque Generale) undertakings of modern finances for war funding. John Law initially innovated the idea from the Amsterdamse Wisselbank of the gold backing receipts to change into fiat paper currency based on fractional reserve banking. That led to the first immense stock bubble in modern history and the collapse of the Livre currency in France. Just google on Mississippi Bubble or Mississippi Company.

Just a small correction.

shafique wrote:

RobbyG wrote:

sorry but the yankees decide what happens not just in the middle east but in the whole world

Jan Kees is a Dutch name. Just as Wall Street in Manhattan is with Dutch origins. The Hudson river is founded by Henry Hudson. A Dutch fella. They say, who owns Wall-street is the one who owns the world, right?

Mate, didn't you know already...we OWN(ed) it all. Well not all...

http://www.historyconfidential.com/2009 ... ll-street/

The Dutch invented modern finance - the stock market and central bank - and were on the verge of dominating Europe at one stage. The Dutch whooped our (the Brits) in wars and had a superior navy.

When we worked out that we couldn't beat them, we staged a royal coup and invited a Dutchman to become king of England. William of Orange became King (well, ruled with his wife Mary) - was a staunch Protestant and went over to Ireland and causes some trouble which is still celebrated today by the Protestants there.

As a result, the Brits got the Bank of England, 'modern finance' (borrowing from its own people) - could more effectively finance wars and effectively this led to it seeing off the next big rival - France. The rest is history.

For a long while the Dutch had the monopoly on trade in the East - with the East India Company (dutch one, which was formed two years after the British one) dominating trade with India. Holland also had dominance further east in Indonesia etc. (IIRC)

But, their time came and went, just like the British, Portugese, Spanish and now the US - (and let's not forget that Italy and Greece were once super powers - Rome and Greek empires - now look at them!)

As for Norway - look at what can be done with oil when there isn't outside interference! Perhaps if Mossadegh had been allowed to do what Norway does, Iran would be free-er and richer today??

(No arnie - keep this here, we don't want to confuse eh with some more topics where he'll be itching to blame Muslims for)

Cheers,
Shafique

This is all untrue Shaf. The bold text above should read thus:

The Dutch invented modern finance - the stock market and central bank - and were on the verge of dominating Europe at one stage. The Dutch whooped our (the Brits) in wars and had a superior navy.

When the British worked out that we couldn't beat them, they decided to use more devious means. The British staged a Royal Coup and Invited a Dutchman, a Mr Weed from Rotterdam to be the King of England.

William of Tango as he became known, became King (well, ruled with his wife Mrs Tango). William was a very chilled chappie indeed. He thought a good way to beat the Dutch was to airdrop by Hot Air Balloon, daffodil bulbs over the entire country and to introduce Cannabis to Amsterdam. His plan worked and thus, he alone, created the most chilled out country in the world. The Dutch Navy kept turning up late for sea battles and kept going the wrong way, and Hollands finances totally went to "pot".

As a result, the Brits got the Bank of England, 'modern finance' (borrowing from its own people) - could more effectively finance wars and effectively this led to it seeing off the next big rival - France. The rest is history.

Wrong again Arnie.

It was the French who attacked us from behind while we were stretched to the limit in Asia with all our ships. We never counted that the French traitors would stab us in the back while we didn't expect it. We had no defense left in Holland. All was out in Asia.

That was the end of the Dutch Golden Era.

RobbyG wrote:Wrong again Arnie.

It was the French who attacked us from behind while we were stretched to the limit in Asia with all our ships. We never counted that the French traitors would stab us in the back while we didn't expect it. We had no defense left in Holland. All was out in Asia.

That was the end of the Dutch Golden Era.

With respect mate you are wrong, the French just breezed in. Fortunately France invaded Holland in the early evening, after tea and while all the Dutch were just sitting down to an evening in front of the TV and had lit up their "roll ups".

As for Hollands Navy, well they got lost in the English Channel ,they thought they were in Asia because they had been going around in circles for the last 5 months.

arniegang wrote:

RobbyG wrote:Wrong again Arnie.

It was the French who attacked us from behind while we were stretched to the limit in Asia with all our ships. We never counted that the French traitors would stab us in the back while we didn't expect it. We had no defense left in Holland. All was out in Asia.

That was the end of the Dutch Golden Era.

With respect mate you are wrong, the French just breezed in. Fortunately France invaded Holland in the early evening, after tea and while all the Dutch were just sitting down to an evening in front of the TV and had lit up their "roll ups".

As for Hollands Navy, well they got lost in the English Channel ,they thought they were in Asia because they had been going around in circles for the last 5 months.

Guys like you make Pinochio look like a girl.

Get outta here.

peace and love man

arniegang wrote:peace and love man

Aren't you gonna offer me some 'green democracy' then?

Robby, I apologise unreservedly for any confusion or unintended insult my attempt at humour produced. I'll ensure to put 'eh' in ' ' in future


As for the history lessons - firstly Robby, no disagreements on the description of what the Dutch invented (joint stock companies etc)- I actually meant it in a positive manner - these developments did indeed create real value by enabling wider ownership and facilities where capital could be used more efficiently. (You guys, and later the Brits, created the tools that later would be mis-used for speculation rather than investment).

(Anyway, this info is fresh in my mind as I recently read Niall Ferguson's book 'Ascent of Money' - which he also made into a documentary series for TV - both are recommended, but (naturally) there's more detail in the book. Both are available on-line if one looks in the right places )

As for arnie's 'corrections' - I'm wondering whether he's writing from an Amsterdam cafe! (But I laughed).

Ok - you ex-colonial powers can duke it out without me...

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks,

That book, from Niall Ferguson - The Ascent of Money, did you read that on my recommendation I made some time ago? Because I mentioned it on DF and have read the book myself also. I really enjoyed it.

Regards Rob

Not consciously Robby - I had read his book Empire before and my boss had also recommended Ascent of Money. I saw the documentary series a while back, but only finally got the book a few months ago. But regardless - it is a fascinating read.

On my list of 'to-reads' is his book on the American empire - Collosus.

My personal view is that these geopolitical issues are so multifaceted, that you can look at the past events through different lenses/filters and come up with different conclusions. The factors all interact - so it is good to look at the individual theories and then put them all together and decide whether we agree with the theories being presented.

Finance appears to be an 'enabler', but so was technology and certainly military(particularly naval) power - and in Empire he also shows the effect of 'missionary zeal' in one of the chapters.

What's fascinating to me is that there are general themes which can be found in all previous and current empires/hegemonies.

Cheers,
Shafique