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.
They go to work and 'operate' computers, like we are doing right now. Even cars are turning into rolling hard drives, with decreasing owner accessible repair options.
Sweden? Norway? Oppressive lives that cater to the lowest common denominator. And higher suicide rates. Talk to some of the guys I know who moved here. They were tired of everything over there being so damn hard to do.
Sweden? Norway? Oppressive lives that cater to the lowest common denominator.
Oppressive lives? People in both countries enjoy the same freedoms, if not more, than people in the US.
Cater to the lowest common denominator? What does that mean? Sweden and Norway both have strong innovative economies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
And higher suicide rates.
The suicide rate of Norway is about the same the US and Sweden is a bit higher. But suicide rates tend to be higher in areas close to the north pole, the states with the highest suicide rates in the US are those that are the coldest as well.
What do all those working people do?
The idea of driftwood is not new. The Economy is based on people working & spending. The juggling act of keeping all the people employed with productive jobs is becoming more difficult as the population/technology increases--see CD thread: Unemployment is a Sign of Progress.
I heard on the radio yesterday that California wants to tax a Company—forgot the name. The company said that they would hire 7000 people instead of being taxed more. Are the jobs really needed?
Sweden? Norway? Oppressive lives that cater to the lowest common denominator. And higher suicide rates. Talk to some of the guys I know who moved here. They were tired of everything over there being so damn hard to do.
They can always move to Burkina Faso or Bangladesh, for the good life. No socialism there, everything free market capitalist. Trust me---you don't even want to think about their lowest common denominator.
You're just getting silly when your only remaining alrgument against socialism is that it "has always failed" and then use Norway and Sweden as examples of failed states to prove it.
There are dozens of capitalist countries that were economically comparable to Cuba in the 1950's, and are much worse off today than Cuba. How come they are not evidence that "Capitalism failed, and will always fail"? Did Sweden fail?
Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Post-1950 Cuba is not a good example of capitalism. And Sweden is very capitalistic.
We're really talking past each other. Unless we have examples of countries that are pure capitalist or pure socialist, we are really comparing apples and apples (i.e. just "varieties" of the same thing). Also, unless we are comparing similar cultures with similar histories, we're neglecting many factors that will mitigate/aggravate the strengths and weaknesses of each system.
The best we can come to pure socialism would be the USSR and they are widely acknowledged as a failure. That doesn't mean they failed in every sense though: they did have a good space program, for example.
So, I don't think that picking certain countries as success stories or failure stories does much good. We really should look at certain characteristics or programs of countries. I think it is widely recognized that government run social welfare programs of most countries are on a path to failure. We know that our programs are going to be underfunded in coming years. Japan has been suffering with this as have many European countries, notably Greece.
On the other hand, capitalism and privately run institutions are usually successful over the long run. This is true in America, Europe, Asia (China's economy has prospered during the transition to capitalism), etc. Yet that does not mean that every company will last forever, every member of a capitalist country will become wealthy, or that every capitalist will able to adequately balance self-interest and cooperation.
------------------
Is man Lion or Ant? Lions form prides and ants build anthills because it helps them survive individually as well as as a group and as a species. A capitalist doesn't believe that he can survive without cooperation with others. It is socialism that says "You are an individual and the government will take care of you individually. Don't worry about trying to be an integral part of the dynamic, functioning free market. Instead, just depend on the government who will tell you exactly what to do and provide for you individually."
But it is not human nature (or even animal nature) to not want to care for oneself first and foremost. So a social system not based on that is doomed to fail. Now that doesn't mean that humans are purely selfish. A human (and most animals) know that personal survival is greatly aided by families, tribes, cities, and other organizations. This is because individuals recognize that other individuals bring different talents and traits that aid the whole group which in turn help all the individuals.
WE are not talking past anything. YOU have declared that every nudge in the direction of a socialized publc entity is absolutely evil, because of a demonstrated failure of brutal communist dictatorships.
You raised that argument, and I just laughed at it. WE are not talking anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
The Left's theories are very attractive, however they neglect human nature. That is why they have always failed, are failing now, and will forever continue to fail. Self-interest is not a bad thing; it paradoxically is what keeps society bound together.
You are saying that Medicare for seniors who have worked all their lives for low wages must of necessity be a bad thing, and neglect human nature. And you hold up Pol Pot to prove it.
The best we can come to pure socialism would be the USSR and they are widely acknowledged as a failure. That doesn't mean they failed in every sense though: they did have a good space program, for example.
You are changing the goal post, before you spoke of "the left" which includes a large spectrum of political thinking which only a small part of which is anti-capitalist. Now, you are entirely focusing on socialism....
Furthermore, saying that something is "widely accept" doesn't actually establishment anything. That seems to be your only support here, namely, the belief that this is something "widely accepted".
Walk down a suburban street at 2 PM knocking on doors--there is nobody home. All adults are gone to work. What the hell do they do all day?
Fifty years ago, one person working a full week from each household of five, created all the goods and services needed for national productivity. Now, it takes two workers from a family of three. What are they doing?
Walk in a store, there are no clerks. Self service items on the shelf, but no American is making them. No checkouts, they're automatic scan. The bank doesn't tally my accounts and send me a statement, it's done by a machine. Phone any office, there's nobody there to talk to you on the phone. Nobody repairs anything, everything you buy is disposable, replace it with something taken off a ship from China, by a robot, no stevedores. No agricultural worker, one farmer can work 400 acres driving his machinery by himself. No laundry workers, machines are automatic in every home. Nobody even slicing McDonald's onions, they come in a plastic bag, already sliced by a computer-controlled machine in Indiana.
What are all those people doing who have jobs?
On the flip side of this my dad always wondered why there were so many people out on the road during the day. Shouldn't they be at work?
WE are not talking past anything. YOU have declared that every nudge in the direction of a socialized publc entity is absolutely evil, because of a demonstrated failure of brutal communist dictatorships.
Not that it is evil, just that it is not successful because it is contrary to human nature. I used "brutal communist dictatorships" because that is the best approximation we have to pure leftism/socialism/whatever-else-you-want-to-call-it-ism. You could also look at all the Utopian communities of the 18th and early 19th centuries or the Israeli kibbutzim.
In order to discuss this properly, we have to decide which characteristics of any given community/nation are leftistic and which are rightistic and whether those particular aspects are successful or not. We simply don't have any pure left or pure right examples.
Quote:
You raised that argument, and I just laughed at it. WE are not talking anything.
Well, I was talking ...or at least I thought I was. Maybe "writing" would have been more appropriate? I'm not sure what you were laughing at, but I hope you don't think I am laughing at you. The principles you are expounding are far to detrimental to be laughed at.
Quote:
You are saying that Medicare for seniors who have worked all their lives for low wages must of necessity be a bad thing, and neglect human nature. And you hold up Pol Pot to prove it.
No, I'm saying that social programs that aren't funded properly and that don't acknowledge human nature are doomed to fail. The belief that people can be given more than they contribute or that they can be forced to live under collectivism is doomed to fail , whether it is proposed by Pol Pot or by Barack "The Messiah" Obama.
Quote:
Start discussing the real issues.
Which are.....?
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.
I'm not sure what you were laughing at, but I hope you don't think I am laughing at you. The principles you are expounding are far to detrimental to be laughed at. 
