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.
The amount of socialism they have is comparable to the US. Their socialism feeds on their capitalism the same way it does here.
it is NOT comparable to the US scandinivians have the most successful nations on the earth and they have a STRONG social safety net.. if you want the government to help anybody here you're called a communist and considered evil for wanting a decent society
it is NOT comparable to the US scandinivians have the most successful nations on the earth and they have a STRONG social safety net.. if you want the government to help anybody here you're called a communist and considered evil for wanting a decent society
They also have the whitest states on the planet...
How can we get to that "Golden Age?"
Teabaggers: Those hateful white people who can't intermingle with anyone but their own race.
They also have the whitest states on the planet...
How can we get to that "Golden Age?"
Teabaggers: Those hateful white people who can't intermingle with anyone but their own race.
(hypocrite)
they have white states, because they all share a common PHYSICAL heritage and ETHNICITY (for the most part) there are black people living in scandinavia. it's not because they're AGAINST other races.
they have white states, because they all share a common PHYSICAL heritage and ETHNICITY (for the most part) there are black people living in scandinavia. it's not because they're AGAINST other races.
Why? Because they don't know how to capitalize or punctuate and capitalize?
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.
Examples please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinylly
I can name a couple: Cuba has been very sucessful, -for Fidel Castro. China has been very successful, -for the communist party.
If you can make everybody else your slave, you will be very, very, very successful.
You don't actually know what socialism is do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
It seems to be a uniquely American error to believe social benefits equals socialism.
.It seems to be a uniquely American error to think Socialism equals Communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik
Really? Did you visit the Soviet Union when it existed?
They had free healthcare, free daycare, all education was free, housing was provided by the government.
That's obviously not socialist enough for you.
The Soviet Union was not Socialist and never has been Socialist. You really need to learn the difference between Socialism and Communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik
If socialism is so good why the Soviet Union dropped it and switched to
capitalism after 70 years of free stuff they had been enjoying?
The Soviet Union was COMMUNIST not SOCIALIST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
Healthcare for anything involving surgery means a waiting list.
Not strictly true. If you need surgery that is not particularly life threatening then yes, you will have to wait. If your condition is serious you will receive surgery immediately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
socialism DEMANDS everyone contibute...so all the welfare LEACHES will someday be EXECUTED
socialism DEMANDS that you conform..so conform or be exterminated
socialism demands you do what's right for society...so having a ""carousel"" (nei logan's run) where you CONFORM to society and WILLINGLY are EXTERMINATED is MANDATED
socialism (nei 1984) DEMANDS you turn in any violaters (ie attack.watch)
socialism is anti-fredom...socialism OUTLAWS fatty foods, salt, sugars, pepper...(nei demolution man):
.....[A]nything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat......
.....Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license.....
That's just too stupid to warrant a response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik
A Socialist Motto: "You don't understand what socialism is!"
....and how appropriate it is too because you clearly don't understand what socialism is.
One problem is that the right-wing media has programed its drones to believe "Socialism" is a swear word. In Europe it's just another political party. Therefore, the right-wing never evaluate any positive benefits of government, they just dismiss anything with a hint of Socialism.
The fact is that every nation is a mixed economy. Some nations have more government intervention than others and others have more private activities. In New York City, the government runs the buses and trains. One can get all the why from the tip of the Bronx to the Rockaways for $2.25 -- an amazing bargain for the public.
In my view, it's not a matter of whether one calls something "capitalism" or "Socialism." What matters is whether it works well. For most production, capitalism has proven to be the most efficient method. However, capitalism has a disincentive to protect the environment, because the least a company can spend on environmental protections the lower the cost to the company. Therefore, government has a legitimate role to regulate the environment. The same goes for worker safety, energy efficiency and any other societal goal that doesn't have anything to do with profit or loss.
The Economist’s“Democracy in America” blog has a very good illustration of the reasons our privatized, market-based system is so much more expensive, for no better results, than everyone elses':
Quote:
One way capitalism can make health care worse and more expensive
A medical technology company is going public to generate the money it needs to advertise its products to hospital directors and insurance-company reimbursement officers. This entails significant extra expenditures for marketing, the new stocks issued to fund the marketing will ultimately have to pay dividends, banks will have to be paid to supervise the IPO that was needed to generate the funds to finance the marketing campaign (presumably charging the industry-cartel standard 7%)…and all this will have to be paid for by driving up the price the company charges to deliver its technologies. But beyond the added expense, why would anyone think that a system in which marketing plays such a large role is likely to be more effective, to lead to better treatment, than the kind of process of expert review that governs grant awards at NIH or publishing decisions at peer-reviewed journals? Why do we think that a system in which ads for Claritin are all over the subways will generate better overall health results than one where a national review board determines whether Claritin delivers treatment outcomes for some populations sufficiently superior to justify its added expense over similar generics? What do we expect from a system in which, as ProPublica reports today, body imaging companies hire telemarketers to sell random people CT scans over the phone?
In addition:
Quote:
The other key thing to pay attention to is who this marketing campaign was targeted at: key decisionmakers at providers and insurance companies. Those are the people who decide whether medical procedures get ordered. It’s not patients. Patients aren’t going to experience a loss of freedom or satisfaction because an expert reviewer at the Independant Payment Advisory Board makes the call as to whether a procedure is medically beneficial, rather than the corresponding bureaucrat at their insurance provider or at the for-profit clinic they’re attending.
When conservatives knee-jerk, "capitalism is always better," they should think of this.
However, capitalism has a disincentive to protect the environment, because the least a company can spend on environmental protections the lower the cost to the company. Therefore, government has a legitimate role to regulate the environment. The same goes for worker safety, energy efficiency...
No, the same does not go. Pick up any econ 101 book and you'll learn about 'externalities,' Pollution is an example. Any advocate of capitalism (Milton Friedman, for example) will readily acknowledge the need for government to regulate to prevent pollution or other externalities. Worker safety and energy efficiency are not externalities however. Thus, you're mixing up apples and oranges.
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.
