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're not socialist, not even close. The UK is closest and conveniently also the worst off.
Quote:
That sounds like something conservatives would LOVE.
So socialism is conservative?
Quote:
Why is distributing wealth where it is needed bad? If people have enough to survive, why is that not sufficient?
Because aggregate production decreases if there isn't that motivating incentive to accumulate things and increase personal quality of life. It's just the way humans have always been wired.
Quote:
A socialist system need not be that oppressive. Once again, look at the success of democratic socialism in Western Europe.
Once again, none of those countries are socialist.
Quote:
No one is talking about shooting people. Obviously, that is deeply evil and something I, and all true socialists, would never support. Socialism is not an oppressive system where people get murdered for holding opposing views. One of the central principles of democratic socialism is hearing all voices and respecting all views.
I really favor a mixed economy like what is found in Scandinavia or Germany, and I don't approve of what happened in Eastern Europe. The government has to play a role in centrally planning the economy. Profit is only legitimate if its not based on exploitation of other people, something that Capitalism has traditionally be blind to.
Exactly, I agree 100%. This is what those on the right (especially conservatives at CD) fail to see. Most modern "socialists" don't want Soviet-style communism, they want a mixed economy, a form of social-capitalism like what exists in Scandinavia, France, or Germany (you know, those countries that are doing better than us). To say that we support Stalinism is a ridiculous straw man.
People seem to be very ignorant of the fact that Europe, other than post-WW2 - pre-1989 Central/Eastern Europe, has never been nor is to this day socialist. They also have been fed misinformation on how Sweden, Germany, etc do things.
Exactly, I agree 100%. This is what those on the right (especially conservatives at CD) fail to see. Most modern "socialists" don't want Soviet-style communism, they want a mixed economy, a form of social-capitalism like what exists in Scandinavia, France, or Germany (you know, those countries that are doing better than us). To say that we support Stalinism is a ridiculous straw man.
So you favor mass deportation of blacks and hispanics to put us in line with their demographics?
and with the Scandavnanian countries ask them how much they like to drill for oil!
Also look at their court systems and see how many frivilous lawsuits occur compared to the US per capita.
Good point. It's important to realize that in exchange for the "lavish" social programs, bellyaching by people who feel oppressed will be ignored by just about everyone, including courts and law enforcement. Unless a doctor amputates the wrong foot, you're SOL in court trying to sue him/her for damages.
They're not socialist, not even close. The UK is closest and conveniently also the worst off.
The U.K. has issues, aside from economics, that cause its problems. Besides, the U.K. is struggling a lot less than we are, that's for sure.
Quote:
Because aggregate production decreases if there isn't that motivating incentive to accumulate things and increase personal quality of life. It's just the way humans have always been wired.
You're assuming rational choice theory is true. I don't assume that. There are factors other than personal gain that motivate people to work and produce. I would stick with my current career path even if the promise of a high salary in the future didn't exist, because it is what I love to do.
Materialism (GREED) is evil, and it must be destroyed if we are to advance as a species. The goal of life is not to accumulate "stuff." Personally, I think there should be a cap on how much wealth someone should be allowed to accumulate.
Quote:
Once again, none of those countries are socialist.
They are much closer to socialism than we are. If you want a true socialist country that is doing well, look at Venezuela. It was one of the poorest countries in the world before Chavez instituted his reforms, and now it has reached an almost first-world level.
Quote:
Socialism doesn't port well from paper to 3D.
Neither does capitalism. No system is perfect, but in my humble opinion, socialism is far more equitable for the non-wealthy than capitalism.
The U.K. has issues, aside from economics, that cause its problems. Besides, the U.K. is struggling a lot less than we are, that's for sure.
Cite? The recent riots seem to fly in the face of that assertion.
Quote:
You're assuming rational choice theory is true. I don't assume that. There are factors other than personal gain that motivate people to work and produce. I would stick with my current line of work even if the promise of a high salary in the future didn't exist. Materialism is evil, and it must be destroyed. The goal of life is not to accumulate "stuff." Personally, I think there should be a cap on how much wealth someone should be allowed to accumulate.
Your current line of work might be in a nice area. Someone who cleans s**t won't want to do it because it makes them feel good contributing to society. They'll want to stop cleaning s**t as soon as possible, or get paid a lot to do it. Considering that my area is research, I would benefit greatly from socialism. I could enjoy a lifetime of 24/7 mental masturbation solving tomorrow's problems. Of course, I would benefit at the expense of the guy who hauls crates of food from the back of his truck, or the guy I mentioned earlier who has to clean my s**t from the restroom.
Quote:
They are much closer to socialism than we are. If you want a true socialist country that is doing well, look at Venezuela. It was one of the poorest countries in the world before Chavez instituted his reforms, and now it has reached an almost first-world level.
See, you're debating very oddly. You're advocating for hard line socialism on one end, then saying that a mixed economy works best. It is my belief that folks like yourself advocate for a transitional cycle like that of Canada, etc. sliding slowly toward near total socialist control. I am also of the belief that many on OWS think this way. In their deluded minds they believe that if we just do the transition very slowly, we'll just all be as snug as a bug in a rug.
Also, Venezuela like most Latin American countries were always occupied by oppressive juntas rather than any sort of constitutional republic. Comparing socialism to that isn't really meaningful.
Quote:
Neither does capitalism. No system is perfect, but in my humble opinion, socialism is far more equitable for the non-wealthy than capitalism.
You're entitled to your opinion. People who lived in USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Hungary, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuanian, and Albania would like to disagree with you.
A person falls because of a broken step at a hotel in Brussells, The person goes and gets a cast, the doctor tells them to watch your step next time.
The person in Brussels has free government-run health care. He is fine after his injury heals.
Quote:
A person falls because because of a broken step in San Francisco, the person goes to the er and gets a cast, then calls their lawyer to file a lawsuit against the hotel. After months of clogging up the court system either the hotel settles and gives the person a huge settlement or it goes to court clogging up the system and costing many more tax dollars. Then the Jury awards a million dollar suit.
The person in San Francisco has no health insurance. If she doesn't sue, she will be stuck with a bill of over $100,000 and will, through no fault of her own, either be forced to file for bankruptcy and ruin her credit (preventing her from getting housing, transportation, or employment) or be crushed under a mountain of debt for the rest of her life.
"Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the George W. Bush administration, and there is no reason to believe that more of them will have any today," writes Bruce Bartlett. He's an economist who worked for Republican congressmen and in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
As for the idea that cutting regulations will lead to significant job growth, Bartlett said in an interview, "It's just nonsense. It's just made up."
Most of us already knew this, but for those of you he believed the Republican candidates. Here is your sign.
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.
What are you trying to imply?
