Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Capitalism or corporatism won't work in a country that doesn't have an industrial base. IMO one can use socialism to build that industrial base and move forward from there.
It's actually the opposite. Socialism stifles the development needed to establish a viable industrial base. Socialism if it works at all tends to work in already established, high income countries that have natural competitive advantages.
With all this Occupy Wall Street protesting going on, it seems that these people are advocating a more socialist government. But, has socialism ever worked over the long term, to the point that it would be better than capitalist U.S. policy? Can someone give me examples of successful socialist countries that have lasted for the LONG TERM and/or will likely last for the LONG TERM? Should the U.S. envy other socialist countries? Does it really work better as these Occupy Wall Street people believe it would? Honestly, it seems like the Tea Party of the left.
No industrial country is 100% socialist or 100% non-socialist. I think markets are a better policy than planning, but there are several countries that pursue much more socialistic policies than the U.S. with reasonable success. I don't think Finland has asked for any foreign bailouts lately, have they?
Finn 93.4%, Swede 5.6%, Russian 0.5%, Estonian 0.3%, Roma (Gypsy) 0.1%, Sami 0.1% (2006)
5,259,250 (July 2011 est.)
$186 billion (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 56 $180.3 billion (2009 est.)
$196.5 billion (2008 est.)
Finland has a highly industrialized, largely free-market economy with per capita output roughly that of Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Trade is important with exports accounting for over one third of GDP in recent years. Finland is strongly competitive in manufacturing - principally the wood, metals, engineering, telecommunications, and electronics industries. Finland excels in high-tech exports such as mobile phones. Except for timber and several minerals, Finland depends on imports of raw materials, energy, and some components for manufactured goods. Because of the climate, agricultural development is limited to maintaining self-sufficiency in basic products. Forestry, an important export earner, provides a secondary occupation for the rural population. Finland had been one of the best performing economies within the EU in recent years and its banks and financial markets avoided the worst of global financial crisis. However, the world slowdown hit exports and domestic demand hard in 2009, with Finland experiencing one of the deepest contractions in the euro zone. A recovery of exports, domestic trade, and household consumption stimulated economic growth in 2010. The recession left a deep mark on general government finances and the debt ratio, turning previously strong budget surpluses into deficits. Despite good growth prospects, general government finances will remain in deficit during the next few years. The great challenge of economic policy will be to implement a post-recession exit strategy in which measures supporting growth will be combined with general government adjustment measures. Longer-term, Finland must address a rapidly aging population and decreasing productivity that threaten competitiveness, fiscal sustainability, and economic growth.
President Hugo CHAVEZ's continued efforts to increase the government's control of the economy by nationalizing firms in the agribusiness, financial, construction, oil, and steel sectors have hurt the private investment environment, reduced productive capacity, and slowed non-petroleum exports.
I assume you are very young and not part of the work force because if you look at your paycheck you will see that SS and Medicare are not gifts because YOU are paying for them out of your own pocket. Medicaid on the other hand is a gift and is paid for by taxes. SS and Medicare are not taxes they are contributions and if you don't want SS you do not have to pay for it but you will not be able to collect anything. However both of these institutions have been continually raided by successive administrations and that is part of the reason they are going down the tubes. You have the right NOT to participate in these programs. They are not part of the tax code and do not come under the umbrella of the IRS.
They are all socialist programs or do you not understand what socialism is? If you truly believe you are taking out what you put in then by all means push for the privatization of social security. Trust me you will not be able to last a year or even worse you'll never see that money. The government serves as that safety net. But don't go around saying SS is not a government socialist program when it is. The court jester of your party called it a "ponzi scheme" now why would he call it that if it wasn't a socialist program? Why were Republicans against the idea of SS when FDR proposed it along with universal health care?
Why is SS ok but not a single payer system? Is it not the same concept? It's unfortunate universal wasn't able to pull through back then I'm sure it would be very popular with Republicans today like SS is....
I work and I don't plan on ever getting on social security in the future. But I know what a socialist program is. The problem with you dumb conservatives is you want to have your cake and eat it too. You complain big government but want big government when it suits you. Unlike many Americans, I'm a rational thinker I don't "quiver" at the word of Socialism (it's apparent you don't know what it means). This country has a mixed economy reflections of both capitalism and socialism.
The amount of socialism they have is comparable to the US. Their socialism feeds on their capitalism the same way it does here.
You have it ass backwards there pal. Here in Canada at least it's a two way street where both sides are fed by the partnership between all the different stakeholders in our socially reformed free market system. It's because of this fact of a modern social society that Canada does not have the incredible social problems that the USA has. WE don't have the urban blight and ghettos that almost all American cities suffer from. Our crime rate is a fraction that of the USA. WE don't suffer multigenerational welfare like the USA does because our social system creates and incourages a way out. WE don't have big business leaving the country because they can't afford healthcare costs. Our excellent education system that is available to all, even the poorest of the poor is a boone for business looking for qualified people. WE don't have a large % of our population in jail that has at it's base a failure in social progress. WE also don't have a country divided by bitterness and anger, that pits one Canadian against another 24\7 365 days of the year like there is in the USA. That too is a result of a lack of social justice and equality.
Your statement that the amount of socialism is comparable is false on a couple of grounds. Firstly there is NO socialism. Social programmes do not equate to Socialism no matter how many millions of times you hear this lie from Americans. Secondly, wharever social programmes there are in the USA and there are probably more of them than here are not very effective because of the almost total corruption of the entire body politic in the USA. No matter at what level it is, wether it's local, state or federal in the USA the system is rotten to the core. I would not be in the least surprised if 50% or more of all the money in any social programme was absolutely wasted by fraud, theft, nepotism, cronnyism and other political scams. Canada has universal medical care for all legal residents of the country and it costs the country just over half per capita of what the USA pays for their mishmash of a healthcare system. Where do you think all that money goes? I'll tell you one thing for sure. Most of it is not going to patient care.
You don't have a socialism problem in the USA in the least. What you have is one big Mother of all political problems where the entire political class of the country deserves a failing grade and not just a failing grade but something like a 5% average. Big time FAIL.
They are all socialist programs or do you not understand what socialism is? If you truly believe you are taking out what you put in then by all means push for the privatization of social security. Trust me you will not be able to last a year or even worse you'll never see that money. The government serves as that safety net. But don't go around saying SS is not a government socialist program when it is. The court jester of your party called it a "ponzi scheme" now why would he call it that if it wasn't a socialist program? Why were Republicans against the idea of SS when FDR proposed it along with universal health care?
Why is SS ok but not a single payer system? Is it not the same concept? It's unfortunate universal wasn't able to pull through back then I'm sure it would be very popular with Republicans today like SS is....
I work and I don't plan on ever getting on social security in the future. But I know what a socialist program is. The problem with you dumb conservatives is you want to have your cake and eat it too. You complain big government but want big government when it suits you. Unlike many Americans, I'm a rational thinker I don't "quiver" at the word of Socialism (it's apparent you don't know what it means). This country has a mixed economy reflections of both capitalism and socialism.
If you pay for it it's not a gift from the government. If you don't want it don't pay for it. That's that the rest is smoke and mirrors from our "rational thinker." Thanks but no thanks. If the money isn't there after you paid in then it has nothing to do with socialism it has to do with incompetence or outright robbery. SS isn't a socialist program it's IS private payer. You might call it a social program but that doesn't make it socialism.
Norway. For many years it had a small-enough population that socialism was really effective and as far as I know, still is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism
