the best way to describe it would be countries like norway and sweden ... where socialistic principles take precedence over individualistic goals all within a capitalistic framework ...
so, corporations and individuals are allowed to earn as much money as possible but not at the expense of socialistic values such as the environment or someone's health ...
value is placed on programs such as education and health care in order for individuals in society to have the best assets to contribute to society ... long-term sustainability of people and resources are not sacrificed for short-term gains ...
And don't forget Germany. Germany's economy is solid right now. Has been for a while. They also have social healthcare, education, and great infrastructure.
And don't forget Germany. Germany's economy is solid right now. Has been for a while. They also have social healthcare, education, and great infrastructure.
it's really a cultural thing too ... it's the "me" vs "we" thing ... in germany, you are told that you are only allowed to produce so much garbage a week ... people get it ... over here - people feel it's their right to produce as much as they want ... you take a train there and it's like super fast and efficient ... every time you pass a train station, there are 300 bikes parked there ...
the best way to describe it would be countries like norway and sweden ... where socialistic principles take precedence over individualistic goals all within a capitalistic framework ...
so, corporations and individuals are allowed to earn as much money as possible but not at the expense of socialistic values such as the environment or someone's health ...
value is placed on programs such as education and health care in order for individuals in society to have the best assets to contribute to society ... long-term sustainability of people and resources are not sacrificed for short-term gains ...
And how much immigration do they have? Can we have a similarly closed border (I know they don't close theirs, but I am sure the net immigration is somewhere near that in effect). Again, I'm not for closing the border. But, socialism as you have described it (and it's not quite that simple or perfect there either) is made remotely possible by the more homogeneous nature of their population.
EDIT: For clarification - the homogeneous comment does not just go to immigrants. It is a broader commentary on the population at large. Some immigrants are our most intelligent, innovative and productive folks, and the US' openness in terms of immigration and opportunity affords them and the country the chance to reap the rewards.
Post edited by EdsonNascimento on
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I think certain aspects of socialism is good. Shit the US has socialism all over. Medicare, SS, proper regulation of commercial activities eg insurance, banking, etc.
I also think that if people really knew what socialism was they would have more of an open view of it. As I guarentee that 80% of Americans do not know that Medicare and SS is socialism. Again small amounts of socialism is fine by me.
Yeah those are great programs...
Do you know how many people rely on Medicare and SS? Without these programs the elderly would be screwed. My mom and aunts and uncles are up there in age and they have nothing but great things to say and would be broke if it were not for these programs. If you saved up $500,000, and retired at 65 and had a yearly expense of $20,000, in 25 years you are broke. With that....how many people would be able to save $500,000? Not many. So let's say someone is able to save $100,000 with $20,000 in expenses. Have a fun 5 years because it's over after that. Also this is able to save this money with no children...good luck buddy.
Let me ask you this, how come we in America will educate you through grade scool, middle school and high school but as soon as you get sick we say "Good luck you are on your own" it doesn't make sense. Why would we bother educating everyone putting time and money in our investment but if they get sick they are on their own? Healthcare is a human right.
Guess what? People pay into Social Security. It's a service we buy.
People get out what they pay in, it's not a free service.
And how much immigration do they have? Can we have a similarly closed border (I know they don't close theirs, but I am sure the net immigration is somewhere near that in effect). Again, I'm not for closing the border. But, socialism as you have described it (and it's not quite that simple or perfect there either) is made remotely possible by the more homogeneous nature of their population.
EDIT: For clarification - the homogeneous comment does not just go to immigrants. It is a broader commentary on the population at large. Some immigrants are our most intelligent, innovative and productive folks, and the US' openness in terms of immigration and opportunity affords them and the country the chance to reap the rewards.
what's your point?
like i've said in all these kinds of threads ... the countries (and no one is saying any one is perfect) that are rated as the best places to live are all socialistic in nature ...
fundamentally speaking a society that helps each other is going to do better than one where everyone is out for themselves ...
like i've said in all these kinds of threads ... the countries (and no one is saying any one is perfect) that are rated as the best places to live are all socialistic in nature ...
fundamentally speaking a society that helps each other is going to do better than one where everyone is out for themselves ...
These surveys/ratings that decide where the best places to live crack me up. None of them take into account and "risk adjustment." That's an insurance term, but what I'm saying is there are so many variable to take into account and those types of things never do. What's the average IQ in those countries? What's the median? What's the average of the lower quartile? Well, if they're smarter on average, then all of this becomes a lot easier. It's like a nature v. nurture thing - does our country create drug addicts living on the street or just attract them? It's very simplistic to say - well they're the best because they have X and another country doesn't when the cost to provide X to everyone is a lot cheaper/easier.
The only measure I can understand is - who has the highest NET immigration? That must be the country most people think is the best. Can we deport our neediest folks to Norway and see how their "experiment" works? (Again, not advocating that). i.e. our neediest are needier than their neediest in gross numbers.
It's like saying I'm stronger than you because I could bench the 100 lbs barbell I was given, but you can't bench the 1,000 lbs one you were given. I must be superior.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
These surveys/ratings that decide where the best places to live crack me up. None of them take into account and "risk adjustment." That's an insurance term, but what I'm saying is there are so many variable to take into account and those types of things never do. What's the average IQ in those countries? What's the median? What's the average of the lower quartile? Well, if they're smarter on average, then all of this becomes a lot easier. It's like a nature v. nurture thing - does our country create drug addicts living on the street or just attract them? It's very simplistic to say - well they're the best because they have X and another country doesn't when the cost to provide X to everyone is a lot cheaper/easier.
The only measure I can understand is - who has the highest NET immigration? That must be the country most people think is the best. Can we deport our neediest folks to Norway and see how their "experiment" works? (Again, not advocating that). i.e. our neediest are needier than their neediest in gross numbers.
It's like saying I'm stronger than you because I could bench the 100 lbs barbell I was given, but you can't bench the 1,000 lbs one you were given. I must be superior.
soo ... correct me if i am wrong but you are saying that the neediest in the US is more needier than in places like norway because of immigrants and their poor education levels? ...
if so, that opens up a whole can of worms ...
either way - it also does seem that you are implying that having a well educated populace makes a societal form much easier to maintain ... something that socialists believe in ...
Its like you can't think without something laid in simple terms for you...
Its a pretty easily understandable scenario, and the question is how could you support socialism in a society that didn't rely on money, only other peoples goods and services.
THere are many different types of 'socialism' and if you can't define what YOU think you mean by this, how can we answer your question properly? And yes, a society that doesn't rely on money can thrive though, as brianlux said, your scenario doesn't resemble any socialism I know.
I think that when talking about socialism here, some may confuse 'true' (if one can use that word) socialism with a social democracy.
Your telling me that there are no people out there that are using other peoples tax dollars (taken by force) to pay for their goods and services?
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?
actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.
soo ... correct me if i am wrong but you are saying that the neediest in the US is more needier than in places like norway because of immigrants and their poor education levels? ...
if so, that opens up a whole can of worms ...
either way - it also does seem that you are implying that having a well educated populace makes a societal form much easier to maintain ... something that socialists believe in ...
That's certainly the simplistic way to look at what I said. No connections necessary.
I am saying that our neediest are needier than theirs as a whole. We have a larger population, we have a greater number of folks at the bottom who need more.
Education is not the sole property of socialsists. Everyone agrees education is the key to solving a lot of issues. The difference is - socialists don't take into account that having incentive to strive for greater things produces greater things (think Ford's assembly line - if efficiency hadn't brought him greater profits, would we have the assembly line?). Socialsits believe to each according to their needs from each according to their ability. The only problem is their concepts tend to stunt the latter, as there is no benefit to achieving more than average and that winds up being its downfall (plus they lower the bar on the lesser as there's no need to do anything as all your needs will be met regardless. So, if you are below average, what's the point in doing anything?). Ask the USSR. Even China is morphing from this concept.
If you lived in or around NYC in the 80's and 90's you'd understand this clearly. David Dinkins crushed the city by enlarging welfare rolls and tending toward more socialistic programs because his theory was people couldn't help themselves. Giuliani came in and said hogwash - I'm giving money to law enforcement and not to welfare, and folks can get jobs. He cleaned up 42nd street and increased tax revenues by giving tax breaks to Disney and the like to populate new buildings in a clean, new Times Square. And folks got jobs instead of wallowing on socialist payouts.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
That's certainly the simplistic way to look at what I said. No connections necessary.
I am saying that our neediest are needier than theirs as a whole. We have a larger population, we have a greater number of folks at the bottom who need more.
Education is not the sole property of socialsists. Everyone agrees education is the key to solving a lot of issues. The difference is - socialists don't take into account that having incentive to strive for greater things produces greater things (think Ford's assembly line - if efficiency hadn't brought him greater profits, would we have the assembly line?). Socialsits believe to each according to their needs from each according to their ability. The only problem is their concepts tend to stunt the latter, as there is no benefit to achieving more than average and that winds up being its downfall (plus they lower the bar on the lesser as there's no need to do anything as all your needs will be met regardless. So, if you are below average, what's the point in doing anything?). Ask the USSR. Even China is morphing from this concept.
If you lived in or around NYC in the 80's and 90's you'd understand this clearly. David Dinkins crushed the city by enlarging welfare rolls and tending toward more socialistic programs because his theory was people couldn't help themselves. Giuliani came in and said hogwash - I'm giving money to law enforcement and not to welfare, and folks can get jobs. He cleaned up 42nd street and increased tax revenues by giving tax breaks to Disney and the like to populate new buildings in a clean, new Times Square. And folks got jobs instead of wallowing on socialist payouts.
please show me a real world example where socialism has stunted innovation ... you are basically saying that socialists are lazy and do not have drive to excel ... which is outrageous ...
i wasn't in NYC that time but i am there now quite a bit ... and all the cool things about NYC are looong gone ... it's all flash no substance that city now ... neighbourhoods that used to be populated by creative and diverse people are not full of kids with trust funds ... the prosperity gap is as wide as it ever has been and it's only getting wider ... everyone i know there can't wait to leave ... sure, if you are all about making money and spending $1,000 on a slice of pizza - it's a great city ...
listen ... i really don't think there is an argument against the concept of socialism ... the accusations of laziness, slavery, etc.. just don't have any merit behind it ...
what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?
the best way to describe it would be countries like norway and sweden ... where socialistic principles take precedence over individualistic goals all within a capitalistic framework ...
so, corporations and individuals are allowed to earn as much money as possible but not at the expense of socialistic values such as the environment or someone's health ...
value is placed on programs such as education and health care in order for individuals in society to have the best assets to contribute to society ... long-term sustainability of people and resources are not sacrificed for short-term gains ...
listen ... i really don't think there is an argument against the concept of socialism ... the accusations of laziness, slavery, etc.. just don't have any merit behind it ...
what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?
listen ... i really don't think there is an argument against the concept of socialism ... the accusations of laziness, slavery, etc.. just don't have any merit behind it ...
what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?
THere are many different types of 'socialism' and if you can't define what YOU think you mean by this, how can we answer your question properly? And yes, a society that doesn't rely on money can thrive though, as brianlux said, your scenario doesn't resemble any socialism I know.
I think that when talking about socialism here, some may confuse 'true' (if one can use that word) socialism with a social democracy.
Your telling me that there are no people out there that are using other peoples tax dollars (taken by force) to pay for their goods and services?
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?
actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.
What would Blockhead do if he couldn't complain about taxes and feel victimized that his money is being stolen?
the best way to describe it would be countries like norway and sweden ... where socialistic principles take precedence over individualistic goals all within a capitalistic framework ...
so, corporations and individuals are allowed to earn as much money as possible but not at the expense of socialistic values such as the environment or someone's health ...
value is placed on programs such as education and health care in order for individuals in society to have the best assets to contribute to society ... long-term sustainability of people and resources are not sacrificed for short-term gains ...
Fair enough. How would you classify Venezuela?
a dictatorship? ... not a model i would implement whatsoever ...
listen ... i really don't think there is an argument against the concept of socialism ... the accusations of laziness, slavery, etc.. just don't have any merit behind it ...
what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?
Your telling me that there are no people out there that are using other peoples tax dollars (taken by force) to pay for their goods and services?
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?[/quote]
actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.[/quote]
What would Blockhead do if he couldn't complain about taxes and feel victimized that his money is being stolen?[/quote]
i was actually trying to be nice. i was going to jump on his idea that people on social assistance can not and do not contribute.
please show me a real world example where socialism has stunted innovation ... you are basically saying that socialists are lazy and do not have drive to excel ... which is outrageous ...
i wasn't in NYC that time but i am there now quite a bit ... and all the cool things about NYC are looong gone ... it's all flash no substance that city now ... neighbourhoods that used to be populated by creative and diverse people are not full of kids with trust funds ... the prosperity gap is as wide as it ever has been and it's only getting wider ... everyone i know there can't wait to leave ... sure, if you are all about making money and spending $1,000 on a slice of pizza - it's a great city ...
I did not insinuate ALL socialists are lazy. That's a lazy argument. I know you are smarter than that. Which means you also have to realize that while yes there are high achievers that will achieve regardless of the circumstances (and low achievers that will fail regardless), the vast majority fall into a category where if the reward is a regression to the mean, the desire and output will be a regression to the mean. Which in human terms can only happen from the above average, thus moving the average down.
And I don't know where you go for pizza, but you can get a slice that's practically the size of half a pie for a few bucks right in Penn Station in mid-town. And there are plenty of creative people in NYC. Can you find me one of those trusts you speak of?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I did not insinuate ALL socialists are lazy. That's a lazy argument. I know you are smarter than that. Which means you also have to realize that while yes there are high achievers that will achieve regardless of the circumstances (and low achievers that will fail regardless), the vast majority fall into a category where if the reward is a regression to the mean, the desire and output will be a regression to the mean. Which in human terms can only happen from the above average, thus moving the average down.
And I don't know where you go for pizza, but you can get a slice that's practically the size of half a pie for a few bucks right in Penn Station in mid-town. And there are plenty of creative people in NYC. Can you find me one of those trusts you speak of?
i'll ignore your condescending remark ... and say that your entire argument is lazy ... it's based on hyperbole and simplifications ... your formula makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ... to even think the validity of a societal form of coexistance can be summarized by a formula is beyond absurd ...
did we invent the wheel or fire because of personal gain or glory? ... no, we invented it for societal benefit ...
where has the model you so prefer succeeded? ... show me examples where limited gov't and free-market capitalism has created a great society ...
and obviously you can get a slice of pizza for a few bucks ... you miss my point completely ... the fact there are joints like this ... http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/nino-selimaj shows the market for excess in that town ...
Would you still support socialism if we lived in a society that didn't use money?
If it was impossible to tax people in order to redistribute wealth, would you simply accept using a barter/trade system for exchanging goods for services, or would you support/form mobs and forcibly invade peoples homes and take their stuff to redistribute to the masses?
Would you force farmers (privately owned) to hand over their land to the "public" so that the production of vegetables was owned publicly?
Say there was a blacksmith in this fictional community, would you forcibly take over his forge? And since he's the only one trained to use it, would you force him to provide his services for free?
I'm curious how you can jusfity socialism being implemented, if at all... If there weren't any banks just working people, bartering/trading for what they need. Wouldn't socialism be pointless if there wasn't a class system to begin with? Just people making a living producing stuff and trading it with other people. Isn't socialism actually counter-productive in such a society?
...
Does this scenario mean that the current system we know of has been obliterated in a Glenn Beck wet-dream, post-apocalyptic Hellscape... or that money has never existed in the first place?
Also... what you describe is not 'Socialism'.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Your telling me that there are no people out there that are using other peoples tax dollars (taken by force) to pay for their goods and services?
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?
actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.
Blockhead:
Why does the government forcibly take my money to fund wars I don't agree with? This is unfair. I want
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
i'll ignore your condescending remark ... and say that your entire argument is lazy ... it's based on hyperbole and simplifications ... your formula makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ... to even think the validity of a societal form of coexistance can be summarized by a formula is beyond absurd ...
did we invent the wheel or fire because of personal gain or glory? ... no, we invented it for societal benefit ...
where has the model you so prefer succeeded? ... show me examples where limited gov't and free-market capitalism has created a great society ...
and obviously you can get a slice of pizza for a few bucks ... you miss my point completely ... the fact there are joints like this ... http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/nino-selimaj shows the market for excess in that town ...
I do apologize. Didn't mean to be condescending. Of course, a lot of what we say here is hyperbole and simplification. Let me try to put my formula into selfish terms - if I expect the same return on my effort as someone who does very little, why should I spend 10 years struggling through school and after to pass Actuarial exams? I can just be smarter than the next guy without having any qualifications, and I still get the same result. So, while Actuaries may not make the world go 'round, they probably do enhance society in some way, shape or form through their training. I'll still be smart (I know, there goes the ego), I just won't have any need to be trained/educated.
As for your wheel - today. We "needed" the wheel (And fire if you want to go back further). We don't NEED massive memory super computers that sit on your desktop. That's created b/c of profit motive. Nothing more. Nothing less. Bill Gates is a great philanthropist now, but he wasn't sitting in a garage with Steve Jobs thinking - let's do something awesome with the computer and live out of this garage the rest of our lives because it's all we need.
And an example for you is the Reagan '80s. We had to redefine what "Full Employment" meant because his economic policies actually created a lower unemployment rate than we ever imagined. Now, much like Norway isn't perfect socialism (I'm guessing Doctors there get more than just their needs met), Reagan wasn't perfect small gov't, unlimited capitalism. But, their concepts are probably as close to their intended precepts.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
and obviously you can get a slice of pizza for a few bucks ... you miss my point completely ... the fact there are joints like this ... http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/nino-selimaj shows the market for excess in that town ...
And you are right - that is ridiculous. But, those fine people are making a living off fools - as in a fool and their money are soon parted. I would never eat there even if I could afford it. I might buy a $13 beer at Alpine, but that's a whole other story in monopolies.... (It's a joke - let's not go off on that tangent even though I just teed it up for you).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I do apologize. Didn't mean to be condescending. Of course, a lot of what we say here is hyperbole and simplification. Let me try to put my formula into selfish terms - if I expect the same return on my effort as someone who does very little, why should I spend 10 years struggling through school and after to pass Actuarial exams? I can just be smarter than the next guy without having any qualifications, and I still get the same result. So, while Actuaries may not make the world go 'round, they probably do enhance society in some way, shape or form through their training. I'll still be smart (I know, there goes the ego), I just won't have any need to be trained/educated.
As for your wheel - today. We "needed" the wheel (And fire if you want to go back further). We don't NEED massive memory super computers that sit on your desktop. That's created b/c of profit motive. Nothing more. Nothing less. Bill Gates is a great philanthropist now, but he wasn't sitting in a garage with Steve Jobs thinking - let's do something awesome with the computer and live out of this garage the rest of our lives because it's all we need.
And an example for you is the Reagan '80s. We had to redefine what "Full Employment" meant because his economic policies actually created a lower unemployment rate than we ever imagined. Now, much like Norway isn't perfect socialism (I'm guessing Doctors there get more than just their needs met), Reagan wasn't perfect small gov't, unlimited capitalism. But, their concepts are probably as close to their intended precepts.
sorry ... similar to blockhead ... your examples have no foundation in the kind of socialism we are talking about ... why is there this perception that in a socialistic society everyone is equal in all aspects of life? ...
as for innovation ... the profit motive does indeed spur innovation ... but the profit motive sometimes does that at the expense of wellness to people (see big tobacco and monsanto) ... having said that - the kid that goes to school and studies genetics and stem cell research who's looking for a cure for alzheimers - you think he's doing it for greed or great riches or do you think he's doing it to cure society of a horrific illness?
and as for reagan ... the dude expanded gov't and raised taxes ... and some seriously shitty things happened under his watch ... i know conservatives treat him like a deity but he ranks as one of the worst presidents in history among historians and progressives ...
totally agree with the reagan part. today reagan could not even run as a republican. he is waaaay too moderate compared to the party today.
I agree with this. That's why it's so funny that folks think someone lauding Reagan is immediately a Republican. I do lean that way (obviously), but what has been proven time and again is our country is actually moderate. Not socialist, not liberal, not purely conservative. I do think as a whole we lean more conservative than liberal, but with a very moderate bent.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
sorry ... similar to blockhead ... your examples have no foundation in the kind of socialism we are talking about ... why is there this perception that in a socialistic society everyone is equal in all aspects of life? ...
as for innovation ... the profit motive does indeed spur innovation ... but the profit motive sometimes does that at the expense of wellness to people (see big tobacco and monsanto) ... having said that - the kid that goes to school and studies genetics and stem cell research who's looking for a cure for alzheimers - you think he's doing it for greed or great riches or do you think he's doing it to cure society of a horrific illness?
and as for reagan ... the dude expanded gov't and raised taxes ... and some seriously shitty things happened under his watch ... i know conservatives treat him like a deity but he ranks as one of the worst presidents in history among historians and progressives ...
Who cares what progressives say (and historians do not say that. I'm sure some do, but on balance not)? If nothing else, Reagan portrayed a sense of - everything will be alright. And it was. Bush I tried that, and it didn't work as well at the end. Obama is trying that, and he's failing miserably. Because behind that a) you have to be believeable (which neither Bush I nor Obama are) and b) you have to surround yourself with folks that know what their doing rather than insisting that you know better than your policy team.
I know - How dare Reagan get the hostages home, end the cold war, get the Berlin Wall torn down, keep Qadafi quiet for 20 years by bombing the crap out of him the moment he stuck his head out of the rabbit hole (without a war) and having unemployment down to the lowest level in our history. Terrible. Simply terrible. We should be so unlucky as to find someone so bad to lead us.
Worst President - that is funny. Jimmy Carter himself would have an argument for you.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Comments
And don't forget Germany. Germany's economy is solid right now. Has been for a while. They also have social healthcare, education, and great infrastructure.
it's really a cultural thing too ... it's the "me" vs "we" thing ... in germany, you are told that you are only allowed to produce so much garbage a week ... people get it ... over here - people feel it's their right to produce as much as they want ... you take a train there and it's like super fast and efficient ... every time you pass a train station, there are 300 bikes parked there ...
And how much immigration do they have? Can we have a similarly closed border (I know they don't close theirs, but I am sure the net immigration is somewhere near that in effect). Again, I'm not for closing the border. But, socialism as you have described it (and it's not quite that simple or perfect there either) is made remotely possible by the more homogeneous nature of their population.
EDIT: For clarification - the homogeneous comment does not just go to immigrants. It is a broader commentary on the population at large. Some immigrants are our most intelligent, innovative and productive folks, and the US' openness in terms of immigration and opportunity affords them and the country the chance to reap the rewards.
People get out what they pay in, it's not a free service.
what's your point?
like i've said in all these kinds of threads ... the countries (and no one is saying any one is perfect) that are rated as the best places to live are all socialistic in nature ...
fundamentally speaking a society that helps each other is going to do better than one where everyone is out for themselves ...
These surveys/ratings that decide where the best places to live crack me up. None of them take into account and "risk adjustment." That's an insurance term, but what I'm saying is there are so many variable to take into account and those types of things never do. What's the average IQ in those countries? What's the median? What's the average of the lower quartile? Well, if they're smarter on average, then all of this becomes a lot easier. It's like a nature v. nurture thing - does our country create drug addicts living on the street or just attract them? It's very simplistic to say - well they're the best because they have X and another country doesn't when the cost to provide X to everyone is a lot cheaper/easier.
The only measure I can understand is - who has the highest NET immigration? That must be the country most people think is the best. Can we deport our neediest folks to Norway and see how their "experiment" works? (Again, not advocating that). i.e. our neediest are needier than their neediest in gross numbers.
It's like saying I'm stronger than you because I could bench the 100 lbs barbell I was given, but you can't bench the 1,000 lbs one you were given. I must be superior.
soo ... correct me if i am wrong but you are saying that the neediest in the US is more needier than in places like norway because of immigrants and their poor education levels? ...
if so, that opens up a whole can of worms ...
either way - it also does seem that you are implying that having a well educated populace makes a societal form much easier to maintain ... something that socialists believe in ...
actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.
That's certainly the simplistic way to look at what I said. No connections necessary.
I am saying that our neediest are needier than theirs as a whole. We have a larger population, we have a greater number of folks at the bottom who need more.
Education is not the sole property of socialsists. Everyone agrees education is the key to solving a lot of issues. The difference is - socialists don't take into account that having incentive to strive for greater things produces greater things (think Ford's assembly line - if efficiency hadn't brought him greater profits, would we have the assembly line?). Socialsits believe to each according to their needs from each according to their ability. The only problem is their concepts tend to stunt the latter, as there is no benefit to achieving more than average and that winds up being its downfall (plus they lower the bar on the lesser as there's no need to do anything as all your needs will be met regardless. So, if you are below average, what's the point in doing anything?). Ask the USSR. Even China is morphing from this concept.
If you lived in or around NYC in the 80's and 90's you'd understand this clearly. David Dinkins crushed the city by enlarging welfare rolls and tending toward more socialistic programs because his theory was people couldn't help themselves. Giuliani came in and said hogwash - I'm giving money to law enforcement and not to welfare, and folks can get jobs. He cleaned up 42nd street and increased tax revenues by giving tax breaks to Disney and the like to populate new buildings in a clean, new Times Square. And folks got jobs instead of wallowing on socialist payouts.
please show me a real world example where socialism has stunted innovation ... you are basically saying that socialists are lazy and do not have drive to excel ... which is outrageous ...
i wasn't in NYC that time but i am there now quite a bit ... and all the cool things about NYC are looong gone ... it's all flash no substance that city now ... neighbourhoods that used to be populated by creative and diverse people are not full of kids with trust funds ... the prosperity gap is as wide as it ever has been and it's only getting wider ... everyone i know there can't wait to leave ... sure, if you are all about making money and spending $1,000 on a slice of pizza - it's a great city ...
what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?
Fair enough. How would you classify Venezuela?
I'm clueless. What does Haliburton get away with?
http://www.ethicsinbusiness.net/case-st ... urton-kbr/
It is only an extreme case of how the Pentagon, the largest source of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, does business.
What would Blockhead do if he couldn't complain about taxes and feel victimized that his money is being stolen?
a dictatorship? ... not a model i would implement whatsoever ...
website blocked. damn. Will check it out at home. Thanks.
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?[/quote]
actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.[/quote]
What would Blockhead do if he couldn't complain about taxes and feel victimized that his money is being stolen?[/quote]
i was actually trying to be nice. i was going to jump on his idea that people on social assistance can not and do not contribute.
I did not insinuate ALL socialists are lazy. That's a lazy argument. I know you are smarter than that. Which means you also have to realize that while yes there are high achievers that will achieve regardless of the circumstances (and low achievers that will fail regardless), the vast majority fall into a category where if the reward is a regression to the mean, the desire and output will be a regression to the mean. Which in human terms can only happen from the above average, thus moving the average down.
And I don't know where you go for pizza, but you can get a slice that's practically the size of half a pie for a few bucks right in Penn Station in mid-town. And there are plenty of creative people in NYC. Can you find me one of those trusts you speak of?
i'll ignore your condescending remark ... and say that your entire argument is lazy ... it's based on hyperbole and simplifications ... your formula makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ... to even think the validity of a societal form of coexistance can be summarized by a formula is beyond absurd ...
did we invent the wheel or fire because of personal gain or glory? ... no, we invented it for societal benefit ...
where has the model you so prefer succeeded? ... show me examples where limited gov't and free-market capitalism has created a great society ...
and obviously you can get a slice of pizza for a few bucks ... you miss my point completely ... the fact there are joints like this ... http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/nino-selimaj shows the market for excess in that town ...
Does this scenario mean that the current system we know of has been obliterated in a Glenn Beck wet-dream, post-apocalyptic Hellscape... or that money has never existed in the first place?
Also... what you describe is not 'Socialism'.
Hail, Hail!!!
Somalia perhaps. A really hands off gov there.
Why does the government forcibly take my money to fund wars I don't agree with? This is unfair. I want
I do apologize. Didn't mean to be condescending. Of course, a lot of what we say here is hyperbole and simplification. Let me try to put my formula into selfish terms - if I expect the same return on my effort as someone who does very little, why should I spend 10 years struggling through school and after to pass Actuarial exams? I can just be smarter than the next guy without having any qualifications, and I still get the same result. So, while Actuaries may not make the world go 'round, they probably do enhance society in some way, shape or form through their training. I'll still be smart (I know, there goes the ego), I just won't have any need to be trained/educated.
As for your wheel - today. We "needed" the wheel (And fire if you want to go back further). We don't NEED massive memory super computers that sit on your desktop. That's created b/c of profit motive. Nothing more. Nothing less. Bill Gates is a great philanthropist now, but he wasn't sitting in a garage with Steve Jobs thinking - let's do something awesome with the computer and live out of this garage the rest of our lives because it's all we need.
And an example for you is the Reagan '80s. We had to redefine what "Full Employment" meant because his economic policies actually created a lower unemployment rate than we ever imagined. Now, much like Norway isn't perfect socialism (I'm guessing Doctors there get more than just their needs met), Reagan wasn't perfect small gov't, unlimited capitalism. But, their concepts are probably as close to their intended precepts.
And you are right - that is ridiculous. But, those fine people are making a living off fools - as in a fool and their money are soon parted. I would never eat there even if I could afford it. I might buy a $13 beer at Alpine, but that's a whole other story in monopolies....
sorry ... similar to blockhead ... your examples have no foundation in the kind of socialism we are talking about ... why is there this perception that in a socialistic society everyone is equal in all aspects of life? ...
as for innovation ... the profit motive does indeed spur innovation ... but the profit motive sometimes does that at the expense of wellness to people (see big tobacco and monsanto) ... having said that - the kid that goes to school and studies genetics and stem cell research who's looking for a cure for alzheimers - you think he's doing it for greed or great riches or do you think he's doing it to cure society of a horrific illness?
and as for reagan ... the dude expanded gov't and raised taxes ... and some seriously shitty things happened under his watch ... i know conservatives treat him like a deity but he ranks as one of the worst presidents in history among historians and progressives ...
totally agree with the reagan part. today reagan could not even run as a republican. he is waaaay too moderate compared to the party today.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I agree with this. That's why it's so funny that folks think someone lauding Reagan is immediately a Republican. I do lean that way (obviously), but what has been proven time and again is our country is actually moderate. Not socialist, not liberal, not purely conservative. I do think as a whole we lean more conservative than liberal, but with a very moderate bent.
Who cares what progressives say (and historians do not say that. I'm sure some do, but on balance not)? If nothing else, Reagan portrayed a sense of - everything will be alright. And it was. Bush I tried that, and it didn't work as well at the end. Obama is trying that, and he's failing miserably. Because behind that a) you have to be believeable (which neither Bush I nor Obama are) and b) you have to surround yourself with folks that know what their doing rather than insisting that you know better than your policy team.
I know - How dare Reagan get the hostages home, end the cold war, get the Berlin Wall torn down, keep Qadafi quiet for 20 years by bombing the crap out of him the moment he stuck his head out of the rabbit hole (without a war) and having unemployment down to the lowest level in our history. Terrible. Simply terrible. We should be so unlucky as to find someone so bad to lead us.
Worst President - that is funny. Jimmy Carter himself would have an argument for you.