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.
You can not compare European countries directly with the United States when it comes to any system, be it government, health care, infrastructure, military, etc.
Europe is small land wise, each country is basically the size of one of our states, and their populations are fairly small compared to the United States. This works to their advantage in many ways, it is always easier to manage smaller groups.
On the other hand Europe had many things that helped them post World War 2, the United States helped to rebuild with large amounts of money (this also led America into its passion of consumerism, but that is another topic) while at the same time America was providing the vast majority of European military defenses which in turned freed up even more money for European governments to spend on health care, and other social services.
So looking at countries like Sweden, Norway, France, Germany, Belgium, etc. and then looking at the United States, it is easy to say "Why can't America be like that?" and the answer is because we spent the past 50 years doing things different than them, you don't make changes like this overnight!
Many European nations adopt Socialist principles, yet they have higher life expectancies than ours, lower infant mortality rates and far less violent crime. So what gives? Is Socialism really *that* bad, or has it simply become the new Communism to the ignoramuses among us?
In my opinion, humanity isn't ready for laissez-faire capitalism, or libertarianism. People are too inherently greedy for it to work, so regulations are needed and the likes of healthcare, education and defense are best kept in the "public" realm, to prevent them from being destroyed and miliked by vulture capitalists who only care about making $$$, rather than protecting human life.
I honestly believe that the free market should work hand-in-hand with a socialist system, mainly for checks and balances. Many of you love to bash the government, yet the government is often the only bastion of protection that the average Joe has from vulture capitalists.
I realize that my values are not exactly "American" and I realize that I'll draw a lot of flack for saying these things in this particular forum, yet in the rest of the world, my views would be considered "normal" and "reasonable".
When is America going to pull its head out of its you-know-what and move forward, with the rest of the world? Are you going to continue to cite Ronald Reagan forever "personal responsabilatahhh: and "welfare queens", or are you going to wake up and smell the roses? Personally, I don't give a s**t as I have dual citizenship, but I'd like to see the United States evolve into a 21st century nation, rather than cling to selfish ideals.
Thoughts, please?
My first thought is that you're not really breaking new ground here. My second is that I think you answered your own question. You're essentially saying that we as people are incapable of making sound decisions for ourselves and therefore should be kept in a state of perpetual adolescence by governments that, according to you, will make better decisions on our behalf than we would have made on our own.
Also, saying humanity isn't ready for a laissez-faire economy is like saying the Earth isn't ready for the food chain or that the Sun isn't ready for solar cycles. It is what it is, and it's not always pretty.
In my opinion, humanity isn't ready for laissez-faire capitalism, or libertarianism. People are too inherently greedy for it to work, so regulations are needed and the likes of healthcare, education and defense are best kept in the "public" realm, to prevent them from being destroyed and milked by vulture capitalists who only care about making $$$, rather than protecting human life.
I honestly believe that the free market should work hand-in-hand with a socialist system, mainly for checks and balances. Many of you love to bash the government, yet the government is often the only bastion of protection that the average Joe has from vulture capitalists.
Thoughts, please?
Enjoythesilence, as a free thinking libertarian, who advocates small government, and is a strong supporter of extending personal freedoms, i would offer the following argument to your first paragraph.
The greedy capitalist market as you describe it functions with a scarcity of of one main component, and that is human labor (human capital).
Without human capital to make the products and then purchase the products there is no greedy capitalist for the free-market to operate. The libertarian argument would center around the industrial revolution in your country of Britain.
For a corporation to maximize profits it needs the following
1. Healthy Workforce
2. Growing Workforce (capable of producing offspring)
3. A Consuming Workforce
All three of things are provided by Human Capital
Why would you argue that a capitalist would not attempt to maintain and extend the longevity of his most brilliant asset?
The capitalist is dependent on human labor, so if the capitalist sets out to destroy human labor, then there can be no capitalist right? Don't you think it is in the best interest of the capitalist, to pay fair wages, make safe work conditions, and employ more workers? Why does government actually need to regulate this?
You could argue that government regulations limit the freedoms of the capitalist as well as the employees?
(Now, this is just for fun, but who is to say, a 13 year old, may want to participate in the labor force. However government regulations prohibit him from entering the work force until age 16. Thus under the guise of "protection" government, has actually limited his choice and ultimately limited the amount of wealth he could have accumulated, if he were able to work at 13. Enjoysilence wouldn't he have more wealth at 60 if he enjoyed more freedom at 13? Government regulation has thus limited his freedom of choice and imposed limits on how much wealth he could attain. Agree?) -Playing devils advocate here!
You could argue government regulations are the only thing that protects us from greedy capitalist and you may very well be correct (to some extent). However, this means that you believe capitalist is naturally inclined to operate against his own self interest to make a profit?
The higher working standards during the industrial age came not because government mandated it so, but because it was in the best interest of the capitalist. The capitalist needs a healthy supply of workers, so he realizes, he cannot continue to have their fingers cut off everyday, die early deaths, and have an inability to procreate, so you can argue government regulations are what hold capitalist in line, but that would only be partially correct. The worker also still maintains an absolute level of power. As long as he realizes he's the most needed component to capitalism, he has strong negotiating skills. Why would government need to come to his rescue?
You inability to view the capitalist as having a vested interest in human capital, is where you go wrong. The advances of the society were not due to government regulations, but capitalist realizing, they needed the human capital, as much as the human capital needed them.
Government only enters to benefit government, because government needs human capital as well to pay taxes. If the government can quickly implement regulations and impose mandates on the capitalist. The government can quickly curtail the lost productivity, before it affects their tax collection.
I think you are naive to think that government is not acting out of its own self interest. If you believe it is done out of kindness you have been thoroughly duped. The Government views the capitalist as someone who will not immediately or rationally view the relationship between human capital and profit as quickly.
Now, because we have regulations, we do not know if the capitalist is much smarter. Perhaps he realizes the healthier and more productive the workforce, the more the workforce can consume. If they consume as much as they produce the more money he makes. Government realizes all those benefits will eventually trickle down to more taxes. In this example Government is really taking on the role of an intermediary to stop both sides from becoming overzealous and killing each other. (Why no business, no workers, government does not receive any taxes). A revolt in which individuals truly decided they would be better on their own and business/government is not worth the collective effort, is a society lost in time. (In other words they would never advance or get anywhere)
Many European nations adopt Socialist principles, yet they have higher life expectancies than ours, lower infant mortality rates and far less violent crime. So what gives? Is Socialism really *that* bad, or has it simply become the new Communism to the ignoramuses among us?
In my opinion, humanity isn't ready for laissez-faire capitalism, or libertarianism. People are too inherently greedy for it to work, so regulations are needed and the likes of healthcare, education and defense are best kept in the "public" realm, to prevent them from being destroyed and miliked by vulture capitalists who only care about making $$$, rather than protecting human life.
I honestly believe that the free market should work hand-in-hand with a socialist system, mainly for checks and balances. Many of you love to bash the government, yet the government is often the only bastion of protection that the average Joe has from vulture capitalists.
I realize that my values are not exactly "American" and I realize that I'll draw a lot of flack for saying these things in this particular forum, yet in the rest of the world, my views would be considered "normal" and "reasonable".
When is America going to pull its head out of its you-know-what and move forward, with the rest of the world? Are you going to continue to cite Ronald Reagan forever "personal responsabilatahhh: and "welfare queens", or are you going to wake up and smell the roses? Personally, I don't give a s**t as I have dual citizenship, but I'd like to see the United States evolve into a 21st century nation, rather than cling to selfish ideals.
Thoughts, please?
Socialism is great for those who are the beneficiaries of that system and profit from other people's resources and labor. Kind of like the good old days of slavery. It is not so great for those who provide the resources, capital, and labor to support the non-productive. In short, it is contrary to human nature.
Socialism usually requires a police state to keep the system intact, as for obvious reasons those being shackled do not care for the system for long. As a result, socialist economic systems are often coupled with tyranicaly political systems.
Now, can I ask you- why don't you just allow people to be free instead? That seems alot more "liberal" and "progressive". Socialism is political and economic tyranny and is the antithesis of freedom. There will be those that enjoy tyranny, but many still want to live free without a government or police state telling them how to live, how much they can earn, and what they need to believe.
Did you know that NORAID (an American organization) actually helped assist the IRA (Irish Republican Army)?
They happened after WW 2 though, clearly proving that those horrible European wars didn't do much by the way of teaching lessons. I have no doubt many American organizations helped many europeans, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Europe's troubles are Europe's. The big, bad Americans just send their boys to die there to stop the problems that the Europeans create.
If the insurance companies are so greedy then why set prices so high that 50 million people can't afford to give them money?
I mean I'm no economist but even I can figure out that if you exclude 50 million people from your services then you are losing money. Not making it. As usually some money is better than no money.
That leaves only 2 explanations. People don't have insurance because they don't want it. Or policies are artifically inflated by govt policy. Thus, the poor can longer afford it.
Because no greedy capitalist is going to pass up a chance at getting money from 50million people. That wouldn't make him a very good vulture.
It's a simple economic question. Surely the advanced socialist can give me a reasonable answer. LOLs. Can't do it can you. Because socialism doesn't work as well as capatilism. And you know it.
You do understand that many people can only "afford" insurance because their company offers it to them at an average of 1/5 or 1/6 of what the premium is. The absurdity is this - if you have a good enough job that offers good coverage (like me), you will probably pay $80-$100 a month for great coverage. Of course I am fine with that. But my friend, who is a waiter and who's company does not offer insurance, has to pay the individual premium. We compared this one day. I make $3,000 a month and my family plan insurance costs $87 a month through my company. My friend makes about $1,600 a month and a comparable family plan bought in the individual market costs $412 a month. Not exactly fair.
This is why I advocate single-payer. Ability to "afford" insurance should not be based on if your company offers to subsidize your premium or not. I understand it is spreading the wealth. My answer to that is, "so what?" That is my honest answer.
Military and public saftey was provided for by the private sector in Ireland for about 1000 years. All indications were that it worked better. And there are plenty of examples of that here to. Rhode Island did it for a long time. Most of the American west had no government until after the Civil War. There is no reason to believe public safety was more at risk there than places in the East where it was provided by the government.
Well it may have worked in Ireland, however, the last thing I would want is the fire or police department to bill someone for the use of their services. It has corruption written all over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
I find this cynical attitude to be an unfortunate one, yet it's highly common to hear sentiments like these expressed by Americans. Perhaps if we weren't such a dog-eat-dog society with such a weak social safety net, we wouldn't have such bitter feelings toward our fellow Americans.
I was actually being sarcastic..
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
They may be happy with the quality, but according to the poll described in this story, barely half of Americans are happy with the cost.
Not to rain on your parade.. But since when is everyone satisfied with the cost of anything? Everything is always too expensive these days.. Although I will say that gas prices are within a tolerable range...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tymberwulf
You can not compare European countries directly with the United States when it comes to any system, be it government, health care, infrastructure, military, etc.
Europe is small land wise, each country is basically the size of one of our states, and their populations are fairly small compared to the United States. This works to their advantage in many ways, it is always easier to manage smaller groups.
Here is the problem, each European country is similar to a state in the US. You have individual countries with usually a few large cities. It would be like every state in the US being independent of one another. That is why Europe adopted economic Socialism, just so they could compete with their neighboring companies. If you have competition between several private companies within a country without a lot of space to expand, you end up being taken from the outside (divide & conquer).
Europeans yield power to government of their country.. In the US, that would translate to yielding power to state level government. Furthermore, the US has a federal government that is the ultimate source of power. Comparatively, how do you think Europeans would feel if Brussels suddenly passed legislation giving them supreme power over all EU nations, with all member states having to yield power to the central government, no questions asked? Local laws could be overridden, and from now on all new legislation in individual countries must run through a federal level. Odds are, most Europeans would be pissed off at that notion. We have had a similar system since the days after the Articles of Confederation were scrapped. So perhaps are problem is indeed trying to apply 'one size fits all' policies from a federal level, as opposed to more localized state politics such as what exists in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rb4browns
The big, bad Americans just send their boys to die there to stop the problems that the Europeans create.
Europeans have been killing each other in long and bloody wars since the days of the Roman Empire. Fortunately, Americans have helped keep the peace, with Bill Clinton himself finally pushing for Europeans to unite under a new EU constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyTheSilence
Capitalism is based almost entirely on greed...that's right. That's about all I agree with. What about healthcare though? Isn't that better in the public realm too, since you included the military and public safety (healthcare falls in the realm of "public safety", after all)?
Healthcare is not really 'public safety'. Perhaps ambulance service is, but it should remain with a usage fee no matter what reforms come along, that way everyone doesn't start calling the ambulance for a paper cut. I have not quite decided if I am all for UHC, does not seem that the US has a real example to base our own version own. Although, if you want to be technical about it, techincally the US does have free healthcare through free clinics and the health department..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyTheSilence
Not true at all....because if that were the case, Europe would be third world by now.
Ok, this is a red flag for me. Not understanding and reckognizing the economic and historical context of the example provided tells me that you know very little about the functions of a socialist/collectivist economy. If you need another one, try Boeing vs. Airbus, where several EU nations needed to nationalize, provide captial, and even had to serve as customers to create a company that could keep up with the American free enterprise. Not sure how creating a competitive market can cause Europe to become a third world country.. That comment from you is most unusual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyTheSilence
Until the human race evolves to be less greedy and self-serving, the notion of "personal responsibility" (Reaganomics) will never work. You can take that to the bank and do whatever you want with it...it's the truth. People are inherently greedy and unless there are regulations in place to prevent abuses of power, most of us will end up as slaves to our corporate masters. It's sad that you consider most people to be lazy though...most people do want to earn an honest living, believe it or not?
The fact remains that people refuse to take opportunities when they arise. I understand and accept that a lot of people do not wish to work for a living. However, there are plenty who have perfectly plausible excuses. Skipping on the free college and job re-training offered by just about every state in this country, and passing up job opportunities for no good reason are among reasons that I have lost faith in Americans. Besides, lazyness should be right up there with greed in terms of natural human impulses and desires that will ultimately never shed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnjoyTheSilence
Since when did I mention financing those who simply choose to sit on their butts? That's Reagan talking again....the welfare queen myth, etc. Most people DO want to do an honest day's work, yet our society has made it tough for many of those people, through no fault of their own. Socialism at the very least provides a safety net and allows people to pursue their dreams and ambitions, without having to worry so much about bill$$$$....(the US is bill central, after all).
People who want to put in a honest days work, do so. Every child in this country starts out in the same free public schools, with the exact same opportunities to do well and earn scholarships and attend college. Aside from a few extreneous circumstances, there really is no excuse not to get an education and a job.
Last edited by Frankie117; 08-21-2009 at 09:19 AM..
Many European nations adopt Socialist principles, yet they have higher life expectancies than ours, lower infant mortality rates and far less violent crime. So what gives? Is Socialism really *that* bad, or has it simply become the new Communism to the ignoramuses among us?
In my opinion, humanity isn't ready for laissez-faire capitalism, or libertarianism. People are too inherently greedy for it to work, so regulations are needed and the likes of healthcare, education and defense are best kept in the "public" realm, to prevent them from being destroyed and miliked by vulture capitalists who only care about making $$$, rather than protecting human life.
I honestly believe that the free market should work hand-in-hand with a socialist system, mainly for checks and balances. Many of you love to bash the government, yet the government is often the only bastion of protection that the average Joe has from vulture capitalists.
I realize that my values are not exactly "American" and I realize that I'll draw a lot of flack for saying these things in this particular forum, yet in the rest of the world, my views would be considered "normal" and "reasonable".
When is America going to pull its head out of its you-know-what and move forward, with the rest of the world? Are you going to continue to cite Ronald Reagan forever "personal responsabilatahhh: and "welfare queens", or are you going to wake up and smell the roses? Personally, I don't give a s**t as I have dual citizenship, but I'd like to see the United States evolve into a 21st century nation, rather than cling to selfish ideals.
Thoughts, please?
Don't use that "they have higher life expectancies than ours" crap, by trying to compare a country of 3-5 million, where 98% of them all have the same racial make-up and ethnicity, and try and compare it to 300 million people, where the racial and ethnic make-up come from all over the earth. There are too many variables that go into why people live longer and where they live, and its not simply because of their politics.
You are sooo right. Their is much too much diversity in America, too much freedom, and waaayy, waaaayyyy too much liberty and choice. America need to, how did you put it... " pull its head out of its you-know-what and move forward" and get in line for our government provided uniforms and just conform to the government norm that Europe embraces.
We need government to remove the very idea of "personal responsabilatahhh." Wake up America, we need the firm boot of government at our throats.
Last edited by Wapasha; 08-21-2009 at 08:49 AM..
Reason: typo
They happened after WW 2 though, clearly proving that those horrible European wars didn't do much by the way of teaching lessons. I have no doubt many American organizations helped many europeans, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Europe's troubles are Europe's. The big, bad Americans just send their boys to die there to stop the problems that the Europeans create.
Yeah, much like British (and other European) troops were sent to fight alongside US troops in BOTH Gulf Wars...go figure.
Don't use that "they have higher life expectancies than ours" crap, by trying to compare a country of 3-5 million, where 98% of them all have the same racial make-up and ethnicity, and try and compare it to 300 million people, where the racial and ethnic make-up come from all over the earth. There are too many variables that go into why people live longer and where they live, and its not simply because of their politics.
You are sooo right. Their is much too much diversity in America, too much freedom, and waaayy, waaaayyyy too much liberty and choice. America need to, how did you put it... " pull its head out of its you-know-what and move forward" and get in line for our government provided uniforms and just conform to the government norm that Europe embraces.
We need government to remove the very idea of "personal responsabilatahhh." Wake up America, we need the firm boot of government at our throats.
98% of the same racial makeup? You've got to be kidding...Europe has plenty of immigrants.
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.
