Has socialism ever been successful? Examples, please? (unemployment rate, illegal aliens, stats)

[js1mom]

Originally Posted by cougfan

Before someone starts screaming Norway & Sweden as "examples" - lets see them have open borders and let millions on non-citizens use their welfare/social systems and see how long they would last!

Boom! And there you have it. It's like that old story about the pot of soup made by many with very little when everyone brought what they could to add to the pot. When all was said and done- there was enough soup to feed everyone when individually they didn't have enough to eat. Now the REAL problem comes when a crowd of people who had not thrown anything into the pot unexpectedly show up at the last minute for dinner. Sooner or later- you're going to run out of food and some people will end up hungry.

While you hate to turn away a hungry person whether he or she contributed from the get go or not- is it fair, reasonable, or even sustainable to let those who came early with something to throw into the pot starve while the late comers eat their fill in front of them and even bring more and more and more hungry non-contributing people with them the following day? You allow this day after day with no objection, and eventually the late comers will even have the audacity to believe that it is their "right" to eat from the "communal" pot...

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by nicet4

Just because socialism has caused the murder of 100 million people and has never worked throughout history is no reason not to try it again.

More like 200 million but who is counting?

[fisheye]

Originally Posted by summers73

The same thing was said about industrialization taking the jobs away from farmers, and yet this country experienced the biggest boom of our history.

This will be farther reaching than just taking the jobs from the farmers. I don’t think that you can dismiss it that easily.

[GregW]

When I was in school 45 years ago I figured our country would have a stable population as our generation dropped our birth rate to replacement levels or below. That would have provided employment for everyone at increasing wages as the supply of workers stabilized or dropped. Instead the corporatists’ that own our politicians and run our country for their own benefit saw this coming and opened the doors to immigrants from all over the world to keep the population of workers growing faster than the jobs. The result was a stunning growth in the stock market and a slow slide into genteel poverty for the workers already here. This has only been compounded by the replacement of industrial jobs with automated machinery. The effect is the same as replacing paid workers with slaves only the machines are not alive. They only have to be bought with borrowed money and fed cheap electricity. They are ideal employees and even better than human wage slaves. They are, along with unlimited immigration, just another nail in the coffin of a prosperous working class.


The Swedes also figured this out but their industrialists were willing to pay higher wages instead of allowing immigration. They were satisfied with substituting machines for labor where ever they could and to share the productivity with their customers in their own country. Smart move.

This is a form of socialism operating in an intensely capitalistic country.

[Moth]

Originally Posted by seacreature99

Most European countries have mixed economies with varying degrees of socialism and free market capitalism. It's not that different from the US, although the big difference is health care which is free at point of use and funded almost entirely by taxpayers in all European countries. I understand Australia, Canada and NZ are similar.
I really don't see what the big-deal is with having a state run health care system, as long as it isn't abused (health tourism etc)

There is a lot of appeal. No doubt about that.

I reckon the fear comes from the term, "state run." That means the same surly, incompetant bureacrats who run the DMZ will be running the health care system. Not an appealing notion.

It means innovation will be stifled.

And since we cannot keep our current welfare programs solvent, how would this one not go broke?

None the less, countries that have them seem to like them. I suppose its a trade off. We will lose some things and gain some others.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by olecapt

No. Quite untrue. Scandanavia is vastly more socialistic than the US. Schooling, medicine, welfare...you name it.

This is why they can afford all those things...

Oil production (per capita) statistics - countries compared - Nationmaster

[GregW]

Have you ever run into a 'surly, incompetent bureaucrats" employed by a private sector insurance company? I have. I have also dealt with our NH DMV while obtaining license plates for my motorcycle and the associated safety course and was treated politely and efficiently by a skilled clerk.

[fisheye]

Originally Posted by GregW

When I was in school 45 years ago I figured our country would have a stable population as our generation dropped our birth rate to replacement levels or below. That would have provided employment for everyone at increasing wages as the supply of workers stabilized or dropped. Instead the corporatists’ that own our politicians and run our country for their own benefit saw this coming and opened the doors to immigrants from all over the world to keep the population of workers growing faster than the jobs. The result was a stunning growth in the stock market and a slow slide into genteel poverty for the workers already here. This has only been compounded by the replacement of industrial jobs with automated machinery. The effect is the same as replacing paid workers with slaves only the machines are not alive. They only have to be bought with borrowed money and fed cheap electricity. They are ideal employees and even better than human wage slaves. They are, along with unlimited immigration, just another nail in the coffin of a prosperous working class.


The Swedes also figured this out but their industrialists were willing to pay higher wages instead of allowing immigration. They were satisfied with substituting machines for labor where ever they could and to share the productivity with their customers in their own country. Smart move.

This is a form of socialism operating in an intensely capitalistic country.

For most of the years I can remember; my school taxes have increased 10%. We were lucky if wages in the private sector rose more than 1 to 3% each year. In most cases the private sector raises did not keep up with inflation - especially when you factor in the school tax increases.
Industrialization brought promises to America. Yes; some feared change - but it all worked out in the end. We went through decades where our wages rose and life was better.

For the last thirty five or forty years that has not been the case. The average American has lost ground. You can talk politics. But; it really has nothing to do with politics - this is a leadership problem. We need direction and I do not really see anybody addressing the issues. We are reactive instead of being proactive. Nobody has the courage to stand up to our lobbyist.

AI is just around the corner. Robots get better and computers get smarter. There is not one sector of our economy that might be exempt in the future.

[Moth]

Originally Posted by GregW

Have you ever run into a 'surly, incompetent bureaucrats" employed by a private sector insurance company? I have. I have also dealt with our NH DMV while obtaining license plates for my motorcycle and the associated safety course and was treated politely and efficiently by a skilled clerk.

GregW:

Of course I have.

However, those in the private sector can be disciplined and fired if need be. In direct contrast, it is very difficult and often impossible to fire a civil servant. Therein lies the (obvious) difference.

Incentive is part of human nature. If you do not ever have to face the possibility of losing your job due to behavior or performance, then you have little incentive to perform to the fullest of your abilities.

And yes, I have encountered friendly and efficient civil servants as you have. But that is not what we are talking about.

I would think someone in New Hampshire would be able to comprehend this.

[Grim Reader]

Originally Posted by js1mom

Boom! And there you have it.

1961 called. They want their stats back. Don't forget that Western Europe has an immigration pressure that is hard to fanthom from the viewpoint of a medium-immigration whiteyville nation like America.
In 1961, European nations was pretty stable ethnically. 50 years later, it is quite a different story. Switzerland has twice as many foreigners as the USA, as a percentage. Germany, Sweden...its 2011.

Originally Posted by momonkey

This is why they can afford all those things...

Oil production (per capita) statistics - countries compared - Nationmaster

Um...doesn't that actually prove the opposite? Norway produces a lot of oil, and does not spend any oil money, Denmark produces a little bit, Sweden and Finalnd produces none whatsoever -and can afford exactly the same stuff.
So that link kindof proves that the natural reserves is in fact, not a requirement.