First of all, if you wish to post in this thread, please do so only to answer my question, THEN debate. Not too concerned about hyperbole from either side of the fence, or indeed those sitting upon said fence.
So, Socialism eh? I have to say, I really don't understand the US objection to this style of Government. Okay, Britain isn't exactly a Socialist Country in the same way as France, but what with the NHS etc, we do have a definite Socialist Infrastructure. Having grown up with it, I find myself somewhat unable to comprehend why you would object to such things as Free Healthcare, Social Housing etc. Quick caveat, I am not saying you are wrong for objecting/not wanting it, I am just putting a question out there.
Now for my take. As I said, I have grown up in something of a Socialist Soceity. I think we all know the immediate cons of this (people taking the piss, higher taxation). But for the NHS etc, I am all in favour. I wasn't a terribly well child, and had it not been for the NHS, my family would be in pretty deep debt thanks to things beyond human control (not counting the disastrous arm/window interface). Plus I have lost my job a few times through Redundancy, and although not much the social security I received enabled me to job hunt more effectively. Sure, I am an example of someone using the system, rather than exploiting it, but that's my point of view based on my own experiences.
So, Fire Extinguishers at the ready, and off we go....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and as regular contributors to my threads might know, I'm not looking to set anyone up here and then shoot down their point of view. Just a rational discussion about the pros and cons as other people see them.
But does Socialism really hinder individualism? Certainly in Britain, I see it as a mechanism to help people up when they get knocked down, so they can get back on their feet and fighting with a minimum of fuss.
But as has been said by both ourselves, the UK is possibly a happy medium.
In what way? I think one of us has the wrong end of the socialist stick, and for the life of me I don't know which of us it is.
Living in the UK, I don't feel like anyone is telling me how to spend my money. Indeed, by being able to depend on the NHS, I don't need to spend it on Private Health Care (though I could if I wanted to) and nor do I need a Pension Fund (though I probably should).
Though of course having lived here all my life, I only have this single perspective, hence the thread!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But does Socialism really hinder individualism? Certainly in Britain, I see it as a mechanism to help people up when they get knocked down, so they can get back on their feet and fighting with a minimum of fuss.
You could say the opposite and it would still be true. Does capitalism force anyone not to worry about the group? Being capitalist doesn't mean you can't help people any more than being socialist means you say feth all to the individual. As a governmental function it has to hinder the individual in some way, even if it is paying higher taxes and for some being forced into doing something will always be a sore spot, even if they would do it without coaxing.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But does Socialism really hinder individualism? Certainly in Britain, I see it as a mechanism to help people up when they get knocked down, so they can get back on their feet and fighting with a minimum of fuss.
But as has been said by both ourselves, the UK is possibly a happy medium.
*Amuricans view socialism as more government. We were formed with a view of extremely limited government and that most government would be at the state level. We had three wars about it, to date. The Bill of Rights was designed, the entire Constitution was designed, to limit what the government could do and protect us from it. Sadly, SCOTUS has let us down in that department.
*Historically, we don't like being told what to do. Most of us came here from countries where lords, dictators, and generals told us what to do. While it has changed slightly, it may the fashion in a few states (Cough Left Coast and New York), but in flyover country, its NOT the new black.
*You also have to understand. Our government sucks. I mean not just like a great sucking sound, but like epic black hole Kafka was an optimist kind of suckage. your government may be better and more efficient. It helps color our view.
*Historically, over time, countries with less regulation have done better economically. Current economy is impacting the states in a similar manner interestingly.
And now Sebster, Shuma, and Dogma will post about how I am utterly evil for daring to speak the words "limited government."
By not being given a choice on how the money taken out of my paychek is spent. If I want Health Insurance I should get my own. If I want to feed the homless I should take the change out of my pocket and do it. If I want to send my child to school I should do it.
-I should not have to replace the word "I" with "The Goverment"
Thing is skip, I see all those things you described as happening to me in a very short space of time. For instance, right now I am actually homeless due to circumstance. Lady I was living with has suffered from ill health recently, and needed the room I had back. Being between jobs (awaiting a Taxi Driving License) I don't currently have the money to get my own place, so I am sofa surfing for the next few weeks. I went to the Council to explore my options, and although unlikely to get immediate social housing, they can however lend me the money to pay a deposit. Now, in my town that's typically £1,000+. Not exactly a small amount, but I could certainly save it up in a few months. But the loan means as soon as I'm earning enough to pay for a room somewhere, bills and food, I'm laughing as I can get the loan straight away and be housed in short order. Sure I have to pay it back, but it's the expedience that matters. Plus there is no interest on the loan.
As for Schooling, it is every childs right to an education, so this is something I feel is very much the Governments duty to fulfil. Now don't get me wrong, much like Medical Care, I firmly believe if you can pay, you should pay, if only to give your kids the edge a private education brings.
I seem to remember from a Michael Moore film (I know I know, but bare with me) that the US does have some kind of Social Security payment system for the unemployed/low income, but it's more of a loan (like my deposit) than a hand out (like British Jobseekers or Income Support).
Sorry if this seems like a 'US BAD, UK GOOD!' thread, but the US is the only major country I'm aware of without much in the way of Socialist structure. I promise I actually want to explore the subject, rather than countries!
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Frazzled, they better not make things personal. In my threads I look for opinion and interpretation, rather than people passing such things off as fact.
As for Schooling, it is every childs right to an education, so this is something I feel is very much the Governments duty to fulfil. Now don't get me wrong, much like Medical Care, I firmly believe if you can pay, you should pay, if only to give your kids the edge a private education brings.
I actually disagree strongly. I hate two tiered things. Everyone should have the same level or be free to do their own. It begets crapschool and crapcare whilst the rich get proper school/care. That was one of the great strengths of California before they went stupid. Via the UC/CS system, and even the bootstrap method through community college (my route), everyone had a shot at getting a worldclass education.
I seem to remember from a Michael Moore film (I know I know, but bare with me) that the US does have some kind of Social Security payment system for the unemployed/low income, but it's more of a loan (like my deposit) than a hand out (like British Jobseekers or Income Support).
Unemployment/social security (different things completely) are not loans. Ostensibly you pay into them and if you are unemployed or become an old fart, you get payments back.
Its not the reality of how they work but that was the idea.
Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s we did not have these systems. People with wealth would just help those with out it. The system was not perfect, but this is also where we got things like the Carnegie Foundation, and the Salivation Army.
Most of the Free world still does this. Bill Gates still run around and GIVES schools computers like candy, and why? I don't know, but he is not rewarded for this. I more people would do this we would not need Government run Social Services.
A Governments Job should be to make sure the borders are secure and that every citizen has his/her .rights observed
Ah fair enough. Perhaps he did his usual thing and cherry picked something to make the Republicans look evil.
And oddly Frazz, I do agree with you about the two tiered system. In the UK, we have quite a problem to class mobility known as 'The Old Boys Network'. Essentially, going to the right school can be more important than your actual qualifications. Indeed, the two big Universities in the UK, Oxford and Cambridge, have had knuckles rapped fairly recently (well, last 5 years) over accusations of elitism. But equally, I do get that some kids are more gifted than others in certain realms of study, and I feel the system should reflect this. In the UK, this means either Private, Public, Grammar or State Schooling. The latter two are free, the former you pay for. Yet with Grammar schools, you need to pass an exam (11 Plus) to get in, and even then you can be told to knob off if they just don't want you (though again this might be changing). For instance, I went through the State School, and found a lot of the lessons boring and unengaging, as I was ready to move on to the next topic quicker than my classmates. Plus the books we studied etc weren't exactly what I'd call quality literature. Compare to an ex-girlfriend who went to a Private School. Far more academic, and I think I would have thrived in such an evironment. But hey ho, you get your cards and just have to play your hand the best you can!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah fair enough. Perhaps he did his usual thing and cherry picked something to make the Republicans look evil.
And oddly Frazz, I do agree with you about the two tiered system. In the UK, we have quite a problem to class mobility known as 'The Old Boys Network'. Essentially, going to the right school can be more important than your actual qualifications. Indeed, the two big Universities in the UK, Oxford and Cambridge, have had knuckles rapped fairly recently (well, last 5 years) over accusations of elitism. But equally, I do get that some kids are more gifted than others in certain realms of study, and I feel the system should reflect this. In the UK, this means either Private, Public, Grammar or State Schooling. The latter two are free, the former you pay for. Yet with Grammar schools, you need to pass an exam (11 Plus) to get in, and even then you can be told to knob off if they just don't want you (though again this might be changing). For instance, I went through the State School, and found a lot of the lessons boring and unengaging, as I was ready to move on to the next topic quicker than my classmates. Plus the books we studied etc weren't exactly what I'd call quality literature. Compare to an ex-girlfriend who went to a Private School. Far more academic, and I think I would have thrived in such an evironment. But hey ho, you get your cards and just have to play your hand the best you can!
We have that here, but to not the extent. Our state university system can't be beat. Private schools are a different matter.
Yarr. I hear much of your Ivy League and Seven Sisters, and I do agree that the better the University, the harder you should have to work to bag your place. The problem in Britain is that I can leave a state school with 4 A Levels, all at the highest grade, and apply to Oxford or Cambridge, and lose out on a place to someone from say, Eton or Tonbridge School (both prestigious schools) who has 3 at the highest grade, just because of where they gained their qualifications.
Rather than get into one of these internet intellectual debates, ill get right to the point pop some smoke and go straight down the middle commando style!
Seems to me, if you have taken from the system, you will be all for it, and if all you seem to do is pay into it. You wont.
Easy isnt it?
For myself, i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system. No dole, no kids, no benefits of any kind, and i havent seen a doctor in 15 years.
I dont like Socialism, i am selfish, i look after myself and i want everyone else to do the same.
I understand why people are for it. But i dont agree with them.
I would get health insurance, and i like to spend my money on me. Women, comics, booze and warhammer, i dont like giving it to needy people, gypsies, asylum seekers, mental patients, criminals, homeless people, or any fether.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yarr. I hear much of your Ivy League and Seven Sisters, and I do agree that the better the University, the harder you should have to work to bag your place. The problem in Britain is that I can leave a state school with 4 A Levels, all at the highest grade, and apply to Oxford or Cambridge, and lose out on a place to someone from say, Eton or Tonbridge School (both prestigious schools) who has 3 at the highest grade, just because of where they gained their qualifications.
Yep. Sounds like private schools. As stated, our state schools are much more open and based on merit, at least the ones I know of (there's a racial and geneder preference thing now though). You can't beat UCLA, UC Berkeley, UTexas and multiple other states schools (is University of Chicago public? I forget).
Absolutely, whereas I have occasionally taken from the pot and whilst I put it off as long as I could (this time last year, I sold my backstock of old GW stuff for £500, rather than sign on) but when it came to the crunch and no job was forthcoming, it was good to know I could fallback on the Social Schemes in the UK. As I said, the downside is when there are those with less scruples than ourselves, who decide to exploit the system for all it's worth, but I still don't see that as a downside unique to socialist policies and practices. Any system devised and defined by man has abusable sections, and any soceity has it's abusers of said systems.
Plus as I said, no one can tell what the future holds for them now, and as such I am supportive of any policy which helps out with the unforseen, and I see Socialist Tendencies in Government as just this sort of thing.
mattyrm wrote:
For myself, i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system. No dole, no kids, no benefits of any kind, and i havent seen a doctor in 15 years.
errr..weren't you in the army ? Which is entirely paid for by "the system" in the first place ? Don't you now work for a local council or similar ?
Further to my repy to Mattrym, I should add that I concede that the counter arguement to my own is just as strong, as one could claim, and not unfairly, that the very social 'safety net' I acclaim could be said to engender a kind of complacency, leading to some going for the handout rather than sorting it themselves. But either way, I'd still rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Frazzled wrote:And now Sebster, Shuma, and Dogma will post about how I am utterly evil for daring to speak the words "limited government."
You betcha!
Nah, limited government is a decent goal, and one desired by most evey country. No-one likes paying tax.
But this has to be compared against the tendency for people to think 'screw you, I've got mine so anything that helps anyone else is socialism'. For instance, people with healthcare arguing that people without shouldn't get any.
Meanwhile, any thread that starts with the idea that the US is capitalist and the UK is socialist is unlikely to give much insight into socialism or the values of the US or the UK. Both are capitalist economies with socialist underpinnings, and if you look close enough you'll notice that the UK isn't strictly more socialist in every area. While it has national health and a stronger social support network, its government is actually a smaller portion of its total economy.
Looking pre-stimulus to 2006 the US govt spent $2.7 trillion out of a total economy of $14 trillion, or 19%. The UK in their 2007/08 year spent $500 billion, out of a total GDP of $2.7 trillion, or 18.5%
mattyrm wrote:
For myself, i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system. No dole, no kids, no benefits of any kind, and i havent seen a doctor in 15 years.
errr..weren't you in the army ? Which is entirely paid for by "the system" in the first place ? Don't you now work for a local council or similar ?
To be fair, not sure either of those modes of employment can be described as benefitting from Socialist Policies.
Anpu42 wrote:Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s we did not have these systems. People with wealth would just help those with out it. The system was not perfect
When you say 'not perfect' you mean literacy rates of around 50% and infant mortality among the poor getting up towards 50%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To be fair, not sure either of those modes of employment can be described as benefitting from Socialist Policies.
Name a socialist utopia that doesn't have a bloated military?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But does Socialism really hinder individualism? Certainly in Britain, I see it as a mechanism to help people up when they get knocked down, so they can get back on their feet and fighting with a minimum of fuss.
But as has been said by both ourselves, the UK is possibly a happy medium.
It's the other way around. Socialism grows more naturally from a collectivist or group orientated worldview.
In terms of nationalities, the Japanese are most likely see themselves as part of a group, the Americans are most likely to see themselves as individuals. Europeans generally are in between.
Obviously these are not rigid positions, Japanese are quite capable of being 'selfish' and Americans are equally capable of organising themselves into groups for the benefit of all.
Sebster. Interesting figures, but I have to ask what it is they are spending the money on. If it includes Defence Budget, then I can tell you right now the UK spends a lot less percentage wise than the US, meaning more of the money is spent on Social stuff, again in terms of percentage.
BTW, what in the name of Satan's Portion do they spend the rest of it on? Or is that where Defence type stuff comes into it? Sorry, I'm shockingly ignorant when it comes to such things!
Sebster. Interesting figures, but I have to ask what it is they are spending the money on. If it includes Defence Budget, then I can tell you right now the UK spends a lot less percentage wise than the US, meaning more of the money is spent on Social stuff, again in terms of percentage.
BTW, what in the name of Satan's Portion do they spend the rest of it on? Or is that where Defence type stuff comes into it? Sorry, I'm shockingly ignorant when it comes to such things!
Sebster. Interesting figures, but I have to ask what it is they are spending the money on. If it includes Defence Budget, then I can tell you right now the UK spends a lot less percentage wise than the US, meaning more of the money is spent on Social stuff, again in terms of percentage.
BTW, what in the name of Satan's Portion do they spend the rest of it on? Or is that where Defence type stuff comes into it? Sorry, I'm shockingly ignorant when it comes to such things!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Goddammit! Not a double, but a triple post. FAIL!
Sebster, please define a bloated military. Not calling you out, just asking for a little clarity. Or is that something akin to 'how long is a piece of string'
Point I was making that even the US has a Military and Council type stuff.
mattyrm wrote:Rather than get into one of these internet intellectual debates, ill get right to the point pop some smoke and go straight down the middle commando style!
Seems to me, if you have taken from the system, you will be all for it, and if all you seem to do is pay into it. You wont.
Easy isnt it?
For myself, i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system. No dole, no kids, no benefits of any kind, and i havent seen a doctor in 15 years.
I dont like Socialism, i am selfish, i look after myself and i want everyone else to do the same.
I understand why people are for it. But i dont agree with them.
I would get health insurance, and i like to spend my money on me. Women, comics, booze and warhammer, i dont like giving it to needy people, gypsies, asylum seekers, mental patients, criminals, homeless people, or any fether.
Is that simple enough?
Entirely...
/Firing resolution aquired.
Your opt out of social responsibility as a healthy young employed man is accepted. What's that? You've been injured in a car accident? You'd like healthcare, housing and welfare to support you and your wife who is now having to remain home and tend you and also the schooling and health costs for the three children you had when I didn't have any.
And you want me to pay for all this, because you were stupid enough to get hit by a car.
And now your telling me one of your kids has developed schizophrenia and become one of those mental patients you wouldn't pay for...
The other kid got knocked up after some teenage pissup party, your what, pro-life?
LOL.
Have fun dealing with life when the supports afforded to you by socialist supports are removed and you get some bad luck.
Your an ex-soldier, are all those Gulf War Syndrome types taking the piss? All those guys who suffer depression and commit suicide after being in warzones and seeing their mates turned to red mist are spongers and should just pull their socks up?
Your opinion is drawn as someone who does have the ability to support himself and also lacks the empathy and enlightened self interest to understand that gak happens to people, gak could happen to you and it's far better for you and yours to be in a society that protects those that fall foul of life happening to them then one that allows people to fall into the abyss.
Frankly as someone with no intention of breeding, I ain't thrilled with paying taxation that goes on schools, why isn't there an opt out for me and my wife from that part of tax? Because paying a tax to support them is part of the deal I make with the rest of society that if I develop cancer, others will be paying my healthcare in the NHS.
If your going to cite personal insurance, I can tell you that working for an insurance company, the money making business we are in is designed around Not Paying Out. We have big teams of assessors looking for ways and means to not pay the money people think we should be paying them. We make people jump through far more hoops to get the cash, we put people though Independant Medical Assessments, whilst these are 'impartial' we tend to use the companies that we find give us the better result and discredit the medical evidence the claimant produced. We in insurance ain't nice people, we ain't state run, we have a profit margin to meet.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sebster. Interesting figures, but I have to ask what it is they are spending the money on. If it includes Defence Budget, then I can tell you right now the UK spends a lot less percentage wise than the US, meaning more of the money is spent on Social stuff, again in terms of percentage.
BTW, what in the name of Satan's Portion do they spend the rest of it on? Or is that where Defence type stuff comes into it? Sorry, I'm shockingly ignorant when it comes to such things!
In the US;
Defence 23% (this is about half of the world's total military spending, and doesn't include Afghanistan or Iraq spending, that was funded outside of budget and another 4% give or take)
Welfare 20%
Health 19%
In the UK;
Welfare 25%
Health 20%
Defence 7%
Sebster, please define a bloated military. Not calling you out, just asking for a little clarity. Or is that something akin to 'how long is a piece of string'
It seems every socialist utopia, USSR, People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, put a hell of a lot of men into the army. They wouldn't spend as much money because they don't have it, but in terms of sheer numbers they're up there with the best of 'em. Easier to control them, I think.
mattyrm wrote:For myself, i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system. No dole, no kids, no benefits of any kind, and i havent seen a doctor in 15 years.
Up to now. Long may it continue. But you have taken from society - you were born (in a hospital), went to nursery, Primary school, Secondary school, joined the Royal Marines (you know how much I respect this, by the way, but taxpayers fund the military. Fact), and are currently working for the Local Authority. It also doesn't matter that you haven't used the NHS in 15 years - you obviously used it before then, and if you stay in the UK, you will almost certainly use it again.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no hard-core red by any stretch - I am very uncomfortable with some aspects of Unionism, and would never join a union (apart from the NUS, which apparently I have no choice in). I don't believe that anyone has the 'right' to a job - although they should have the right to a safe workplace, and certain other protections. I think socialism has actually provided my countrymen with greater social mobility, but I think there should be limits to how much control over our lives the government actually has. I think some socialist mechanisms are absolutely vital for any civilised society.
Frazzled wrote:
And now Sebster, Shuma, and Dogma will post about how I am utterly evil for daring to speak the words "limited government."
Why would you assume that I don't want government to be limited? You seem to have an odd habit of taking any criticism of points you make, and assuming that the person delivering the criticism must be diametrically opposed to your position. We have different views on politics (mostly because I don't have a commitment to any principles), particularly international, but it isn't like I approach this whole thing from standpoint of tyranny.
Anyway, your analysis was mostly spot on, though I'd also add the Cold War to the list as something which contributed towards equivocating socialism with evil.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:is University of Chicago public? I forget.
U of C is private, like Malf said, but it doesn't suffer from the same sort of elitism in entrance that the Ivy League, and other prestigious east coast schools do. They admitted me, and I went to a nondescript (though well ranked) public high school.
I'd love to see some form of limited socialism. The biggest defect I see with the welfare, or dole systems are the lifelong recipients. There are entire generations that have never worked, beyond raising 6 or 7 more welfare babies. I have no problemsupporting people who are out of work because they are temporarily out of work, or medically incapable of working. I think there should be some sort of limit- anyone who can't find any sort of work in two years needs some extra encouragement to find work. I think it would be reasonable to give individuals 2 years of unemployment benefit for every 10 years worked, with the first 2 given to you at birth. This would keep more of society productive, and limit the system.
As a disclaimer, this is pure theory. I have no idea of how you would go about implementing it or how it would impact the country. I just hate to see generations grow up knowing that all they need to do to survive is collect a check they did nothing to earn.
Gitzbitah wrote:I'd love to see some form of limited socialism. The biggest defect I see with the welfare, or dole systems are the lifelong recipients. There are entire generations that have never worked, beyond raising 6 or 7 more welfare babies. I have no problemsupporting people who are out of work because they are temporarily out of work, or medically incapable of working.
And as a socialist, I agree wholeheartedly, Socialism is about mutual support, not 'sponging' but protecting those in society that need our support. I also believe that those claiming benefits can be doing compulsory service for their benefits. I walk to work past a river bank that is just covered in rubbish, if everyone in a mile radius currently claiming jobseekers allowance did an hour a day at that river bank with a spiked stick and a bin bag, it would be cleared.
If the weather is crap, hows about all those folks repaint a school gym or something. An hour or two doing the things we currently rely on volunteers for seems eminently reasonable.
Thanks for this thread. It's nearly impossible to find a rational discussion on this topic.
Now, first, I'm one of those crazy liberals. Primarily, I believe in equal access to top quality education (hey, I'm a product of California's UC system), and greater public funding for scientific research (I want my sci-fi to be sci-reality as soon as possible, what can I say...being a scientist also biases my view, of course).
But I do understand fiscal conservatism, which is why I've always wondered why people weren't allowed to allocate how their tax dollars were spent. While certain things must be determined by the government for basic services budgets, I've always felt that other things would be more "optional". In other words, say, how about allowing people to determine where 50% (an arbitrary percentage) of their taxes were spent? For example, say that as you fill out your state taxes, you could check the box for public elementary schools if you wanted your tax money spent there (say you have a child in the system), but leave the box for highway construction/maintenance empty if you didn't (maybe you ride your bike on local streets only). In a way, this allows the people to vote with their tax dollars for the services they want. Also, this would presumably give more power to the middle class, as they carry the majority of the tax burden in society.
Would this be a complete disaster? Or might it work?
Socialism is a word with a lot of negatives connatations and misconceptions about it especially for those living in the US of A. It gets relentlessly tossed around in a negative tone for political mayhem and for many its only a half step or so away from following the footsteps of Nazis and other such socities despite how ill-informed such a view is.
Which is somewhat ironic since when you take the issues line by line like should everyone have access to affordable health care, they'll agree to such a notion...but if you add nasty sounding words to it; no dice.
Like the word athiest, it just doesn't "sound good" especially how it gets tossed around.
The Dreadnote wrote:What if everyone spent their taxes on the provision of ice cream, and nobody was spending it on road repair?
That's the point.
If people don't want it, it's gone.
Or if the people want it, it gets a lot of money.
Now, I understand that your question is based on hyperbole and that you wanted to take an extreme case to make a point, but are you saying that it wouldn't work?
Frazzled wrote:The why can't they just be able to spend it on what they want-ala ice cream? Why does the government take your money and decide?
Thats kind of the point.
Because these would be the things that not everyone wanted funded, but is still in the realm of "things the government provides". Now, I know that it's vague, but it's because these things change over time. Maybe in the future there will only be private schools for instance and the public school box will no longer be on the form, if no one wants to pay for public education. Or, it could be things like the defense, which the government is already responsible for, but you can add more of your tax dollars to it, if you wanted.
There's one thing that I definitely think has an impact on the way Americans view the concept of 'Socialism'.
Namely, the Cold War. Even living in Canada it had a fairly large impact on the lives of my parents and others of their generation, so I can hardly imagine the effect it had on Americans. After spending their young lives with the threat of nuclear war hanging over their heads, and learning about how awful Russia's communist regime was (and it was awful), I'm sure that it's fairly ingrained in a lot of Americans that socialists and communists are 'the enemy'. It's simply a product of the political climate in which they were raised.
Personally, I'm willing to pay taxes to ensure that when I need it, my government will be there, and I'm totally okay with those taxes also going to help other people. But this is tempered by living in Alberta, where our political ideology is a little to the right of deeply conservative. So I understand the cold economic realities that businesses have a lot of power (namely the Oil Companies) and governments have to work to keep their province/state/country a good place for businesses to come to. Which, simplistically, means that you can't tax businesses overmuch to pay for social programs, which means that in the end, it will come out of taxpayer pockets.
I was being civil, Mattyrm doesn't like the crusts cut off his cucumber sandwiches, do you Matt...?
lol.
I like a man who shoots straight to be sure, i didnt think MGS wasnt being civil.
As i said, i see where you guys are coming from, and as i said, i dont think that we should let people rot in the street, but i just feel like the system is too easily cheatable, so im all for making it harder to get money from the state, not easier. Also, i care only about people i percieve as having something in common with me, i admit its a little black and white, but thats something you need as a soldier. Hence i dont give a fig if we give money to Africa, or pay for a Romanian immigrant to get a sex change. When a Taliban fighter shot at my patrol, i didnt stop to think "why is he doing this? Did his parents beat him? Did he never have a chance to get an education? Did he get brainwashed as a boy?" No, i shot back, dropped a few mortars on them and then yomped back to base for tea and crumpets.
Red, your argument was a little strange, (I wasnt in the army though, shame on you!) I joined the Royal Marines because i was a very angry young man and i wanted to shoot people. That fury got me my green beret and some skills i can use, but what has that got to do with socialism? :S
It is state funded to be sure, but your argument is lost on me. There are some jobs that HAVE to be done and we will always need soldiers, id have joined a mercenary company if the Royal Marines or the army didnt exist. Doing something that happens to be funded by the State has nothing to do with supporting socialist ideals, in fact, im an aggressive man, its the exact opposite isnt it? Or were the all the coppers beating the mine strikers up Socialists?
Anyway, ill tolerate some sort of social assistance, but not anything like Socialism that relys on an easily cheatable system. I think people living off the state should live on army bases in dorm, get their food and clothing issued, and basically be treated like i was at boot camp. Its cheap, it works, and it will stop people starving or dying of illness but not swamp the streets in chavs who never work, whose parents never work, who live in a house they never pay for.
Arg! And i told you guys i didnt want to get into a massive debate, i spend too long on here as it is!
Cant we just agree that i am more selfish than you and that can be an end to it? Im cool with admitting it and everything.
Now, on the subject of State Education. As I said earlier, I feel it is very much the State's obligation to ensure Children are educated to one degree or other. As for opting out of your Tax Money funding it if like myself you are currently childless, could it not be argued the percentage of your Taxes that are put into the Education System aren't so much paying for the next generation, but akin to a loan repayment for your own Education? Just throwing out a curve ball there!
Of course, this is treading into the waters akin to Sins Of The Father, and being born into a kind of indentured servitude, owing a debt to your Country/Government which you begin paying when you start work.
Socialism might work in countries that have never had any other form of government (you know, you get used to it) but the US was not founded on socialist policies. Yeah if you go line by line there are probably SOME ties to what socialism represents (a fact only because liberals seem to want to bring this country in that direction).
From what I understand (and I'm sure I'll be flamed for not being a UC flunkie and knowing the facts exactly) Socialism revolves around the government controlling more of the aspects of an individuals life than the individual would be entitled to (say where his taxes go, what goods and services he HAS to pay for wether he wants them or not and being told how to run a business (unlike in a capitalist society).
Take the HCR Bill for example. While I won't get into the legality of it (and it was shady at best how it got passed, illegal at worst) the biggest knock against this NWO Health Care Bill is the fact that the government has told me that in 4 years (2014) I HAVE to have medical/health care. If I don't want health insurance/medical/dental/life insurance I should not be required to purchase any or all of those plans just so that the money I spend gets collected into a pool of sorts and divided out so that others that can't afford it can get it. It's everyones right in this country to be healthy and live but NOT at the expense of others.
This new HCR Bill also does not mean "free" healthcare. I see lots of people spout on about "free" healthcare in Canada and I have to laugh. I pay 7% sales tax on anything that isn't considered a grocery item (pop and candy being the sole exception) and clothing items are also not taxed. If I go north 3 hours to Manitoba, Canada I'll be paying about 12% tax on those same items. If the extra 5% tax is going to help pay for healthcare than I don't see how it's free. It might be free in the sense that you walk into a doctor and get your broken arm reset for no expense to you but by paying 5% more for a trip to Subway or BK than someone living in the US, over the course of your life you'll will pay a lot more in extra taxes than your arm cost you to fix (or a lot more than you would having to BUY healthcare coverage every month) so over the course of 40 years you will pay more for your "free" medical care than I will having to go through a private insurer.
Our government isn't the best but it's also not the worst. I have a uncle who lived in London for the past 30 years. He is now back in the states due to no fault of his own and one of these weeks I'm going to have to have a talk with him about what his life experience over in the UK was like. I know he missed it over here whenever he came back to visit but he never did discuss too much his views on how fair or unfair the British government is.
So call me selfish or whatnot (I've been called worst, even here on Dakka) but like Matty I don't care to have to spend money on something I may or may not want to spend it on. I've used the system and I appreciate some aspects of it but the parts of the system I had to use were also earned. I don't get UI payments unless I have worked a job in the past (unlike welfare and food stamps just given out to anyone 18 and up for being 18 and up and too lazy to work) so to get the money from Obama I have been getting required me to work (and the job I worked to get UI bennies the past 12 months had me working 60 hour weeks (no stranger to some but 60 hour work weeks aren't exactly common in most jobs)). Other than that I've never gotten handouts of any kind. I've had medical insurance through work (only because it was affordable and had some damn good coverage for the premium I paid) but in the past 10 years I'ved used it twice to buy meds for a sinus infection. So in a nutshell I've paid $12K over the past 10 years in premiums to save total $300 on meds. So I didn't NEED the insurance. I got it just in case I had a situation outside of my home (home owners insurance), auto (auto insurance) or work (workmens comp) would mean I would get help for very little expense on my part. With the insurances I have through auto, work and home I really am wasting money on health care. Perhaps when I'm old and I have a stroke I'll need the healthcare but right now if I fall off a ladder at home, get hurt at work or get hurt in an auto accident those insurances kick in and pay and those are already insurances that by law I'm required to have (unless I don't drive but that's not an option) or work covers me (as soon as I go back to work).
Socialist programs might seem fair to those who think that everyone should be entitled equally to everything but it's unfair to those people who don't need socialist programs but have to "add to the coffers anyway" because someone paid too much money to do nothing but play golf and spend $10,000 in a single evening on dinner and shopping using tax payer money can say to the people of this country "We need Change."
I think it's only fair that I am able to drive to work in a Lambo and live in a $10M dollar condo so I think that every tax payer should have to fork over an extra nickle per paycheck to ensure that I get my Lambo and my $10M condo. It might only be a nickel but is that still fair having to pay for someone else's goods and services? Hell, put me down for a private masseuse/chiropractor. It helps me feel better in the daytime so it's a cause worthy service.
Orkestra wrote:There's one thing that I definitely think has an impact on the way Americans view the concept of 'Socialism'.
Namely, the Cold War. Even living in Canada it had a fairly large impact on the lives of my parents and others of their generation, so I can hardly imagine the effect it had on Americans. After spending their young lives with the threat of nuclear war hanging over their heads, and learning about how awful Russia's communist regime was (and it was awful), I'm sure that it's fairly ingrained in a lot of Americans that socialists and communists are 'the enemy'. It's simply a product of the political climate in which they were raised.
Exactly. pre-cold war conceptions of communism and socialism in the US were far different. Nowhere else in the world does socialism have such a bad name, the US's answer to that would be the old 'We're right your wrong,' the rest of the worlds answer is propaganda fed to them since Russia's assailance to a major superpower and subsequent enemy.
mattyrm wrote: i admit its a little black and white,
..so it's a racist thing you're saying....
...,
Red, your argument was a little strange, (I wasnt in the army though, shame on you!) I joined the Royal Marines because i was a very angry young man and i wanted to shoot people. That fury got me my green beret and some skills i can use, but what has that got to do with socialism? :S
It is state funded to be sure, but your argument is lost on me. There are some jobs that HAVE to be done and we will always need soldiers, id have joined a mercenary company if the Royal Marines or the army didnt exist. Doing something that happens to be funded by the State has nothing to do with supporting socialist ideals, in fact, im an aggressive man, its the exact opposite isnt it? Or were the all the coppers beating the mine strikers up Socialists?
Point taken with regards to your armed service, no offence intended, armed forces would have been a better choice of words.
My point was actually practically nothing you talked about was to do with socialism per se, it was just more of... wel.. a rant, so to speak, towards some nebulous "system" which you claim to never have taken anything from,despite having spent almost your entire life having things -- your education, your immunisations jabs, the roads you drive on, and indeed pretty much your entire working life being entirely dependent upon the existence of said state.
Yes, there are jobs that will always need to be done. Soldiers, social workers, teachers, firem.. err... let's leave that one alone perhaps.. coroners etc etc. yet I fail to see what actual point you were trying to make.
I have no idea what you mean with regards to socialists and being non aggressive. Pretty certain the Red Army of the USSR, whilst clearly being handicapped with a ridiculous march ( What is it about oddball countries and stupid marching techniques eh ?) weren't exactly a bunch of peaceniks.
Now, on the subject of State Education. As I said earlier, I feel it is very much the State's obligation to ensure Children are educated to one degree or other. As for opting out of your Tax Money funding it if like myself you are currently childless, could it not be argued the percentage of your Taxes that are put into the Education System aren't so much paying for the next generation, but akin to a loan repayment for your own Education? Just throwing out a curve ball there!
Of course, this is treading into the waters akin to Sins Of The Father, and being born into a kind of indentured servitude, owing a debt to your Country/Government which you begin paying when you start work.
If we're making the analogy to payments for individuals, then I think it's fair to say that the parents should be paying, not the child.
Way I see it, it all goes into a big fund, to be distributed to various areas of the society. We have to do this because more level heads must prevail. I was watching the Steven Fry in America series and he travelled to Texas and attended a big charity auction night, the rich folks there were explaining how they felt being able to decide exactly what worthy causes were worth them contributing was the only right way to do things. If that were the case, heroin addicts would never be helped off it, because it's not a popular cause, it's the Panda vs the {insert ugly endangered animal here} problem.
As a further aside, most students in University will end up with a debt to start paying on leaving education. Again the rich are able to avoid this, parents paying for their child through higher education when a working class child cannot be supported in the same way.
Degrees should be a damned sight harder and should come with a suitable means tested grant to ensure we educate and enrich those minds who will go on to contribute to society.
Poor kid gets grant, goes to Uni, becomes Lawyer, Dentist, Psychologist, pays higher taxes due to better earnings than had poor kid left secondary school and become a milkman, state is rewarded with higher return on the school education + grant than just on school education. Why does this not go on? Because Governments are mostly interested with short term rewards due to being transient/voted out.
Orkestra wrote:There's one thing that I definitely think has an impact on the way Americans view the concept of 'Socialism'.
Namely, the Cold War. Even living in Canada it had a fairly large impact on the lives of my parents and others of their generation, so I can hardly imagine the effect it had on Americans. After spending their young lives with the threat of nuclear war hanging over their heads, and learning about how awful Russia's communist regime was (and it was awful), I'm sure that it's fairly ingrained in a lot of Americans that socialists and communists are 'the enemy'. It's simply a product of the political climate in which they were raised.
Exactly. pre-cold war conceptions of communism and socialism in the US were far different. Nowhere else in the world does socialism have such a bad name, the US's answer to that would be the old 'We're right your wrong,' the rest of the worlds answer is propaganda fed to them since Russia's assailance to a major superpower and subsequent enemy.
I'd imagine it doesn't have such a hot name in the former Warsaw Pact countries either...
Yeah red, the point is mate, that right there is work right? Doing a job in exchange for money, well, whats that got to do with socialism? Im not saying we should revert to tribalism and defend ourselves with sticks.
Anyway, you may have mistook me i wasnt trying to say "I will never EVER take anything from the country ever"
I dont think im some kinda superman, and who knows that the future might bring...
Long Story short, i think we should give people less, not more. Thats why i dont like left leaning socialist types.
I think that if you have paid into the system, then of course, you should get some help. No centre right wing true blue Tory like me is going to think that a man who works hard for ten years and then gets a sudden debilitating injury though no fault of his own should be left to die on a windswept crag.
Lets keep things simple and just say i think we should have a common sense approach, look after the people who genuinelly deserve lookng after, and give far less to those that dont.
I shudder to think how many people living on full time benefits in this country actually deserve or have earned them.... the system is being played like a violin.
To be fair Whatwhat, the US has a longer history of being anti-socialist then the Cold War. Even in the early 20th Century there was a large amount of anti-socialism in the US. Sure Eugene Debbs had started to attract followers, but most Americans are far too individualistic to buy into the whole "group" notion...
mattyrm wrote:Yeah red, the point is mate, that right there is work right? Doing a job in exchange for money, well, whats that got to do with socialism? Im not saying we should revert to tribalism and defend ourselves with sticks.
Anyway, you may have mistook me i wasnt trying to say "I will never EVER take anything from the country ever"
I dont think im some kinda superman, and who knows that the future might bring...
Long Story short, i think we should give people less, not more. Thats why i dont like left leaning socialist types.
I think that if you have paid into the system, then of course, you should get some help. No centre right wing true blue Tory like me is going to think that a man who works hard for ten years and then gets a sudden debilitating injury though no fault of his own should be left to die on a windswept crag.
Lets keep things simple and just say i think we should have a common sense approach, look after the people who genuinelly deserve lookng after, and give far less to those that dont.
I shudder to think how many people living on full time benefits in this country actually deserve or have earned them.... the system is being played like a violin.
In the US the Liberals claim that people don't abuse the system so the system should give even MORE handouts. See the HCR Bill for a fine example of people able to get MA currently, even with private insurers existing, to STILL being able to receive MA but at the expense of those people working being FORCED to buy insurance or paying a fine for it.
It's change alright, but it only changes what the working man has to go through.
This new HCR Bill also does not mean "free" healthcare. I see lots of people spout on about "free" healthcare in Canada and I have to laugh. I pay 7% sales tax on anything that isn't considered a grocery item (pop and candy being the sole exception) and clothing items are also not taxed. If I go north 3 hours to Manitoba, Canada I'll be paying about 12% tax on those same items. If the extra 5% tax is going to help pay for healthcare than I don't see how it's free. It might be free in the sense that you walk into a doctor and get your broken arm reset for no expense to you but by paying 5% more for a trip to Subway or BK than someone living in the US, over the course of your life you'll will pay a lot more in extra taxes than your arm cost you to fix (or a lot more than you would having to BUY healthcare coverage every month) so over the course of 40 years you will pay more for your "free" medical care than I will having to go through a private insurer.
This is a fairly good point. However, the benefit of this (just like insurance in any form) is that Canadians rarely find themselves bankrupt to pay for medical costs, unlike the states. Yes, it adds up to being a lot of money (though, again, in Conservative Alberta we pay 5% and that's all), but it's just a part of your cost of living. Everyone pays that extra bit every time they buy something, and businesses and employers know it just like other people. Minimum wage is higher to compensate for it, and it's a known quantity that's just there all of the time, rather than being surprised by a gigantic medical bill when suddenly you discover you have cancer.
Basically, the GST and PST don't actually have an impact on our financial situations, because it's just a part of the cost of living in Canada. Just like how in some cities rents are high, or in other places food can be more expensive. It's a known quantity, which I find preferable to the alternative. YMMV.
Orkestra wrote:There's one thing that I definitely think has an impact on the way Americans view the concept of 'Socialism'.
Namely, the Cold War. Even living in Canada it had a fairly large impact on the lives of my parents and others of their generation, so I can hardly imagine the effect it had on Americans. After spending their young lives with the threat of nuclear war hanging over their heads, and learning about how awful Russia's communist regime was (and it was awful), I'm sure that it's fairly ingrained in a lot of Americans that socialists and communists are 'the enemy'. It's simply a product of the political climate in which they were raised.
Exactly. pre-cold war conceptions of communism and socialism in the US were far different. Nowhere else in the world does socialism have such a bad name, the US's answer to that would be the old 'We're right your wrong,' the rest of the worlds answer is propaganda fed to them since Russia's assailance to a major superpower and subsequent enemy.
I'd imagine it doesn't have such a hot name in the former Warsaw Pact countries either...
Well there you go, more anti-socialism based on bitter relations with socialist states. My point exactly.
mattyrm wrote:Yeah red, the point is mate, that right there is work right? Doing a job in exchange for money, well, whats that got to do with socialism? Im not saying we should revert to tribalism and defend ourselves with sticks.
Anyway, you may have mistook me i wasnt trying to say "I will never EVER take anything from the country ever"
I dont think im some kinda superman, and who knows that the future might bring...
Long Story short, i think we should give people less, not more. Thats why i dont like left leaning socialist types.
I think that if you have paid into the system, then of course, you should get some help. No centre right wing true blue Tory like me is going to think that a man who works hard for ten years and then gets a sudden debilitating injury though no fault of his own should be left to die on a windswept crag.
Lets keep things simple and just say i think we should have a common sense approach, look after the people who genuinelly deserve lookng after, and give far less to those that dont.
I shudder to think how many people living on full time benefits in this country actually deserve or have earned them.... the system is being played like a violin.
Quite, I wasn't suggestting you were going as far as the old "the poor should catch fish from the thames and eat their young" type argument.
Thing is though, I would say it's quite an awkward task to decide who exactly "genuinely deserves looking after" and, more pertinely, to what degree. It's very easy to point out, to use an earlier example, transexual who won a courtcase and hold it up to decry everything that is wrong with "the system", but that is a very rare event -- that is of course why it is ( in a manner of speaking) "news".
NO system is perfect, obviously, and people will always abuse it or push their luck.
That said though I agree there are. of course, people who do endlessly take and never contribute in any way as such.
This is one of the reasons why I generally think it's advisable for a new Govt. every X years, especially if the opposition has been especially woeful in holding the governing party in power. Extremists from both sides of the spectrum are to be avoided.
It's just when you state things like
i have always been a healthy bloke, i am smart, i have never struggled with finding work, and at the age of 30 i have never ever had a single penny from the system.
it seems kinda odd considering "the system" actually clothed, fed, housed and would have taken care of (most..., I'm sure there's limits.. I must confess to having no idea to the Royal Marines policy with regards to sex changes ) your medical needs.
I'm sure you would have tried[/] to find other employment, and as you're a Dakka member you're clearly at least 12% smarter than the average person, boffins have proven it (17.5% for DCMs oddly enough) probably succeeded, but you can't say you [i]would have done with any degree of certainty.
I've got some family in parts of the NE of England and there genuinely is next to nothing workwise there for them. They can't move house as they can't sell, they've got no savings as they never earned enough and any they had would have been used up long ago. And then they switch on the telly and are told they're ALL lazy or worthless... that aint right.
It's a hidden cost, like so many other hidden costs and it COULD be handy when you need it but here in the states I'm mostly covered in my day to day life with insurance I HAVE to have. I drive a car so I must have auto. No matter the coverage (full or liability) I personally am covered if I get hurt in an auto accident. My home owners covers me if I get hurt on my property and workmens comp (as lousy as that is) covers me if I get hurt at work.
I've also heard more horror stories about health care in Canada than I have in the US. Like clinics and hospitals not being open on Sunday or sitting in a waiting room for 10 hours because a broken arm isn't as vital as someone bleeding out their anus. I've had long hospital room stays but I've never had to wait more than 45 minutes even on the busiest of days and I can get into the clinic/hospital 24/7, 365.
I'm sure that is an isolated incident in Canada but the fact that in some cities/provinces clinics are closed on Sunday is baffling.
Fateweaver wrote:It's a hidden cost, like so many other hidden costs and it COULD be handy when you need it but here in the states I'm mostly covered in my day to day life with insurance I HAVE to have. I drive a car so I must have auto. No matter the coverage (full or liability) I personally am covered if I get hurt in an auto accident. My home owners covers me if I get hurt on my property and workmens comp (as lousy as that is) covers me if I get hurt at work.
I've also heard more horror stories about health care in Canada than I have in the US. Like clinics and hospitals not being open on Sunday or sitting in a waiting room for 10 hours because a broken arm isn't as vital as someone bleeding out their anus. I've had long hospital room stays but I've never had to wait more than 45 minutes even on the busiest of days and I can get into the clinic/hospital 24/7, 365.
I'm sure that is an isolated incident in Canada but the fact that in some cities/provinces clinics are closed on Sunday is baffling.
The only reason you skip those health care ques in the US is because you don't have to wait for the poor foke who can't afford insurance. Forgive socialism for caring.
Orkestra wrote:There's one thing that I definitely think has an impact on the way Americans view the concept of 'Socialism'.
Namely, the Cold War. Even living in Canada it had a fairly large impact on the lives of my parents and others of their generation, so I can hardly imagine the effect it had on Americans. After spending their young lives with the threat of nuclear war hanging over their heads, and learning about how awful Russia's communist regime was (and it was awful), I'm sure that it's fairly ingrained in a lot of Americans that socialists and communists are 'the enemy'. It's simply a product of the political climate in which they were raised.
Exactly. pre-cold war conceptions of communism and socialism in the US were far different. Nowhere else in the world does socialism have such a bad name, the US's answer to that would be the old 'We're right your wrong,' the rest of the worlds answer is propaganda fed to them since Russia's assailance to a major superpower and subsequent enemy.
I'd imagine it doesn't have such a hot name in the former Warsaw Pact countries either...
Well there you go, more anti-socialism based on bitter relations with socialist states. My point exactly.
Wait, you do realize who the Warsaw Pact was right?
@Fateweaver: You're absolutely correct that there are many horror stories about Canadian hospitals. I'm not going to stand up and shout out about how good it is, because I've sat in waiting rooms for many hours. I once waited overnight in the waiting room (20 hours straight) because that was the only way to get into a program I needed to be a part of. On Monday I took my mother to the hospital for a follow up appointment from her surgery, and it was 2 and a half hours after her scheduled time that they finally saw her.
I won't argue the quality, but I do disagree that GST/PST is a 'hidden cost'. Everyone knows that they pay GST, and it's just a little extra on every purchase. Everyone who is writing up their budget knows to add on that 5% (or more in other provinces) so that things balance out.
But yes, Health care in Canada, while not as expensive, can be atrociously slow. That's partially due to lack of funding, and partially due to a lack of nurses/doctors (which ties into funding because of how little we can pay compared to private clinics/other countries). Our government is in a bind right now with regards to health care because most canadians rabidly oppose privatization of health care, but don't want to fork out the cash to make it really work.
The whole "take a number" thing is BS. It's BS at the DMV or anywhere else, it's BS at a clinic.
If I walk into a clinic in pain because my arm is broken I should be admitted right away, not made to wait behind 15 other people their to get weight loss meds or diabetes meds or anything that CAN wait a few hours.
I live in a city where probably 80% of the people in the clinic daily are on some sort of welfare assisted health care (not just Medicare) and yet I've never seen anyone with a broken ANYTHING have to wait more than 10 minutes. I guess I'm lucky in that the clinic and hospital in my town know how to prioritize.
Orkestra wrote:There's one thing that I definitely think has an impact on the way Americans view the concept of 'Socialism'.
Namely, the Cold War. Even living in Canada it had a fairly large impact on the lives of my parents and others of their generation, so I can hardly imagine the effect it had on Americans. After spending their young lives with the threat of nuclear war hanging over their heads, and learning about how awful Russia's communist regime was (and it was awful), I'm sure that it's fairly ingrained in a lot of Americans that socialists and communists are 'the enemy'. It's simply a product of the political climate in which they were raised.
Exactly. pre-cold war conceptions of communism and socialism in the US were far different. Nowhere else in the world does socialism have such a bad name, the US's answer to that would be the old 'We're right your wrong,' the rest of the worlds answer is propaganda fed to them since Russia's assailance to a major superpower and subsequent enemy.
I'd imagine it doesn't have such a hot name in the former Warsaw Pact countries either...
Well there you go, more anti-socialism based on bitter relations with socialist states. My point exactly.
Wait, you do realize who the Warsaw Pact was right?
In effect, a military treaty designed to give Russia power over the forces of it's soviet states. And?
Fateweaver wrote:The whole "take a number" thing is BS. It's BS at the DMV or anywhere else, it's BS at a clinic.
If I walk into a clinic in pain because my arm is broken I should be admitted right away, not made to wait behind 15 other people their to get weight loss meds or diabetes meds or anything that CAN wait a few hours.
I live in a city where probably 80% of the people in the clinic daily are on some sort of welfare assisted health care (not just Medicare) and yet I've never seen anyone with a broken ANYTHING have to wait more than 10 minutes. I guess I'm lucky in that the clinic and hospital in my town know how to prioritize.
When I'm taking about ques I'm not talking about the flipping emergency room.
Fateweaver wrote:I live in a city where probably 80% of the people in the clinic daily are on some sort of welfare assisted health care (not just Medicare) and yet I've never seen anyone with a broken ANYTHING have to wait more than 10 minutes. I guess I'm lucky in that the clinic and hospital in my town know how to prioritize.
Sounds like that is the case actually. 10 minutes would have to be the shortest waiting time I have ever had in a doctors office, and that happened to be a dentists, on a really empty day. The clinics I went to when I was homeless, were next to useless, and you stood a chance of getting sick just by being there.
The shortest time I have ever had to wait to actually receive any serious medical treatment (i.e. not the dentist), was at least 3 hours. If I don't have a full day to spare, it may be a bad idea to try and go to any form of health service. The longest time I ever spent in the ER waiting, was in the region of 10 hours. Your luck if it is fast, and unlucky if it is slow, but there I would simply have to see the numbers comparing service in both countries, before jumping to broad conclusions.
Orkestra wrote:@Fateweaver: You're absolutely correct that there are many horror stories about Canadian hospitals. I'm not going to stand up and shout out about how good it is, because I've sat in waiting rooms for many hours. I once waited overnight in the waiting room (20 hours straight) because that was the only way to get into a program I needed to be a part of. On Monday I took my mother to the hospital for a follow up appointment from her surgery, and it was 2 and a half hours after her scheduled time that they finally saw her.
I won't argue the quality, but I do disagree that GST/PST is a 'hidden cost'. Everyone knows that they pay GST, and it's just a little extra on every purchase. Everyone who is writing up their budget knows to add on that 5% (or more in other provinces) so that things balance out.
But yes, Health care in Canada, while not as expensive, can be atrociously slow. That's partially due to lack of funding, and partially due to a lack of nurses/doctors (which ties into funding because of how little we can pay compared to private clinics/other countries). Our government is in a bind right now with regards to health care because most canadians rabidly oppose privatization of health care, but don't want to fork out the cash to make it really work.
So you can see how the government take over of Healthcare cannot be a good thing. It's going to end up like the Canadian health care. I know we have horror stories ourselves but those mostly involve hospitals in poorer communities being understaffed, staff being underpaid so they just don't care, or doctors practicing illegally because they can stay low key.
No system is perfect but the current system is a lot better than the NWO system. Do I think doctors get paid too much? Not sure. It depends on the definition of TOO much. Most get paid less than lawyers and lawyers DO get paid too much (sorry Frazz) so comparing doctor wages to lawyer wages makes me think doctors should get more. Comparing their wages to a gas jockey at BP would incline a person thinking they get paid too much so should get paid LESS. Do I like paying $100 for 12 little pills for a sinus infection? Guess I'd have to know the cost to make those pills. If they cost a nickel a piece to produce than $100 IS way too much for $.60 worth of medicine. If on the other hand it costs the pharmacy $75 to purchase those same 12 pills from their pharmaceutical company than $25 mark up, while high, is not unreasonable.
I just don't see any good coming of this Bill. Those making millions and billions aren't going to be TOO hurt forking over $100's or $1,000's per month for insurance they don't need but if I was Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs I'd still be annoyed.
Fateweaver wrote:I live in a city where probably 80% of the people in the clinic daily are on some sort of welfare assisted health care (not just Medicare) and yet I've never seen anyone with a broken ANYTHING have to wait more than 10 minutes. I guess I'm lucky in that the clinic and hospital in my town know how to prioritize.
Sounds like that is the case actually. 10 minutes would have to be the shortest waiting time I have ever had in a doctors office, and that happened to be a dentists, on a really empty day. The clinics I went to when I was homeless, were next to useless, and you stood a chance of getting sick just by being there.
The shortest time I have ever had to wait to actually receive any serious medical treatment (i.e. not the dentist), was at least 3 hours. If I don't have a full day to spare, it may be a bad idea to try and go to any form of health service. The longest time I ever spent in the ER waiting, was in the region of 10 hours. Your luck if it is fast, and unlucky if it is slow, but there I would simply have to see the numbers comparing service in both countries, before jumping to broad conclusions.
I've got awesome pseudo Canadia Eh style insurance. If I drop into a clinic I have to wait that kind of time. It doesn't matter. I always have to get an appointment unless I want to wait for hours. It should be expected that if you are a walk in you're going to wait unless there's something serious.
Fatevweaver wrote:So you can see how the government take over of Healthcare cannot be a good thing. It's going to end up like the Canadian health care. I know we have horror stories ourselves but those mostly involve hospitals in poorer communities being understaffed, staff being underpaid so they just don't care, or doctors practicing illegally because they can stay low key.
Actually, I think the opposite - that the Canadian government and people should put in the money to make it work. I think that the problem is that it isn't 'socialist' enough up here. I can see that there are flaws, but if Canada went the other way, and privatized health care, it would have a really detrimental effect on the people who really need that care. At the moment, people who need medical aid to survive (including cancer treatment, etc.) are able to get that, and not have to pay through the nose for it. This is a good thing. The problem is that the less vital treatments are being pushed to the side because we don't have the extra capacity for them that more funding would bring.
In summary, yeah, long wait times are irritating, but they won't kill me or make me bankrupt, which is what the system is currently protecting me from.
(Also, in the ER, they generally do a good job of prioritizing, the problem is just that there were so many people who needed help right now that anyone conscious and breathing could expect to wait a while)
Fateweaver wrote:It's a hidden cost, like so many other hidden costs and it COULD be handy when you need it but here in the states I'm mostly covered in my day to day life with insurance I HAVE to have. I drive a car so I must have auto. No matter the coverage (full or liability) I personally am covered if I get hurt in an auto accident. My home owners covers me if I get hurt on my property and workmens comp (as lousy as that is) covers me if I get hurt at work.
I've also heard more horror stories about health care in Canada than I have in the US. Like clinics and hospitals not being open on Sunday or sitting in a waiting room for 10 hours because a broken arm isn't as vital as someone bleeding out their anus. I've had long hospital room stays but I've never had to wait more than 45 minutes even on the busiest of days and I can get into the clinic/hospital 24/7, 365.
I'm sure that is an isolated incident in Canada but the fact that in some cities/provinces clinics are closed on Sunday is baffling.
The only reason you skip those health care ques in the US is because you don't have to wait for the poor foke who can't afford insurance. Forgive socialism for caring.
And the flaming begins. Oh well it was a fun discussion while it lasted.
Oh yeah right, I forgot the difference between a flame and a counterpoint becomes blurred when the point in question disagrees with your beliefs, and you find it hard to argue against.
So, Socialism eh? I have to say, I really don't understand the US objection to this style of Government. Okay, Britain isn't exactly a Socialist Country in the same way as France, but what with the NHS etc, we do have a definite Socialist Infrastructure. Having grown up with it, I find myself somewhat unable to comprehend why you would object to such things as Free Healthcare, Social Housing etc. Quick caveat, I am not saying you are wrong for objecting/not wanting it, I am just putting a question out there.
People dislike socialism because they don't know what the word means. It's a boogeyman that frames all things that conservatives dislike, despite being prevalent within every government in todays world.
Fateweaver wrote:(and I'm sure I'll be flamed for not being a UC flunkie and knowing the facts exactly)
But hey, who's counting?
In any case, I'm tired of the long lines myself. And with an additional 30-35 million people being added to the system, the lines will only get longer. Sadly, I don't see any solution to this.
Fateweaver wrote:(and I'm sure I'll be flamed for not being a UC flunkie and knowing the facts exactly)
But hey, who's counting?
In any case, I'm tired of the long lines myself. And with an additional 30-35 million people being added to the system, the lines will only get longer. Sadly, I don't see any solution to this.
More lines with less people in them. As populations grow so too is the capability of their governments and economies to manage them. Long lines do not come from inherent flaws within the concept but instead within the people themselves and the structure of their government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you can see how the government take over of Healthcare cannot be a good thing. It's going to end up like the Canadian health care.
You mean like how when I went into the ER when I was 13 after getting hit in the face with a golf club (rather painful experience) had my injury misdiagnosed after waiting for two hours bleeding out of my face then getting charged thousands for it? Or how about how I was placed on six different medications for ADHD and depression over a period of years by my doctor (I later found out he was compensated for each as well as each EKG I had) despite having every single part of it unnecessary (Most symptoms went away when I began refusing "treatment")?
Yeah, it's real terrible up there compared to the fething beacon of efficiency and care we have here.
So you can see how the government take over of Healthcare cannot be a good thing. It's going to end up like the Canadian health care. I know we have horror stories ourselves but those mostly involve hospitals in poorer communities being understaffed, staff being underpaid so they just don't care, or doctors practicing illegally because they can stay low key.
Funny then how care quality per dollar spent is inversely proportional to the number of experts and high end machinery in hospitals in America.
No system is perfect but the current system is a lot better than the NWO system. Do I think doctors get paid too much? Not sure. It depends on the definition of TOO much. Most get paid less than lawyers and lawyers DO get paid too much (sorry Frazz) so comparing doctor wages to lawyer wages makes me think doctors should get more.
How is the "current system" which would be universally bankrupt within 20 years better? Also how do doctors deserve more? Thats a moralistic argument based on the fact that you dislike lawers and seem to like doctors, and it seems to be unrelated to the work or schooling involved in either.
Do I like paying $100 for 12 little pills for a sinus infection? Guess I'd have to know the cost to make those pills.
Likely less than a dollar per bottle manufactured and filled. Most biotech costs come from advertising, research, and legal issues.
If on the other hand it costs the pharmacy $75 to purchase those same 12 pills from their pharmaceutical company than $25 mark up, while high, is not unreasonable.
Is it not unreasonable for the manufacturer to charge a 7,500% markup on the product? That makes sense in the diamond industry, but pharmaceuticals are not a luxury item.
In this case, the long lines come from not having enough clinicians, equipment, rooms/beds, which sadly all cost money. Sure, there'll be an additional 30-35 million customers (mostly belonging to a low risk group), but with healthcare now being unable to drop people who need expensive treatments or deny people based on pre-existing conditions (which are both GOOD things), I'm wondering how the money will balance out.
Too bad we aren't allowed to see the record/budget sheets of these companies to see how the money is really being spent.
Fateweaver wrote:So we should be like all the other countries in the world?
So we should become the USSA, France should become the USSF, and GB should become the USSGB.
Sounds like I'm naming my next battleship or something.
I know. Guns are illegal in Oz so we should ban guns too.
Well good governance is applying what works and throwing out what doesn't. We have plenty of case studies for good and effective social healthcare (japan and canada for instance) and no case studies for good and effective privatized healthcare. Americas system is not the default, our system is entirely unique and it's failing miserably. It spends far more per capita than any other country, gives worse care than many, and is bankrupting the country quickly.
If you have a better idea than pursuing what works feel free to say so.
In this case, the long lines come from not having enough clinicians, equipment, rooms/beds, which sadly all cost money. Sure, there'll be an additional 30-35 million customers (mostly belonging to a low risk group), but with healthcare now being unable to drop people who need expensive treatments or deny people based on pre-existing conditions (which are both GOOD things), I'm wondering how the money will balance out.
Medicare has the same problem, it's providing ludicrous amounts of money for a population more prone to expensive chronic illness than any other, and it's doing it regardless of capability or cost. Why don't people want to rush to cut it?
Well, MN has the best clinic in the world (the Mayo) and texas, is well texas so the only 2 states that peoples opinions should matter in is Mn (best hospital bar none) and Texas (more guns than most sovereign countries).
Cali doesn't matter except to teen girls who want to know the latest fashions and to crackpots who believe Matt Damon's and Sean Penn's view of the US actually matters.
Frazzled wrote:Texas also has MD Anderson, best cancer and heart center in the world. Ask all the Latin American dictators who fly here.
M. D. Anderson has budget problems of it's own. Much of it's budget was tied to endowments which were invested in stocks. It got so bad after the stock market collapse, that they asked physicians to see more patients and took back all institutional funds for scientific research (which prompted quite a few cancer research labs to shut down).
I should know, I worked there, but had to leave after they took away the funding for my salary.
Hopefully as the stock market recovers, they'll move back into the black, and start funding the research again.
David Grose, 39, a Paris, Texas, welder, had a cancerous growth on his nose but couldn't get treatment without insurance. In desperation last fall, he took a bus 300 miles to one of the country's premier cancer centers in Houston, only to be turned away because he didn't have insurance.
Texas also has 25% of its population without medical insurance. Still number 1 there !
And 25% have no car insurance either.
A 60-day pilot project testing the new TexasSure program, which allows law enforcement personnel via computer to verify coverage status when they stop a motorist, focused on Travis County. During the test which is expected to end soon, Texas Department of Public Safety troopers stopped and ticketed uninsured drivers.
So far, 25.5 percent of 5,012 drivers stopped in Travis County and small portions of nearby Williamson and Hays counties since June 2, did not have auto insurance.
"The numbers show that Texas has an even larger number of uninsured drivers than we had realized," said Mark Hanna, spokesman for the Insurance Council of Texas, in a story Tuesday in the online editions of the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News.
The Council has been monitoring the state's new auto insurance verification program.
"Troopers tell us that some areas of the state may have more than half of their drivers uninsured, and that's scary news for everyone else on our roadways," Hanna said.
This spring, the minimum amount of liability insurance Texas drivers are required to have, increased for the first time in 22 years. Hanna said he didn't think the higher requirement was a factor in the lack of coverage because the effect on premiums was "minimal."
During the pilot project, drivers who said they were insured but weren't carrying proof of insurance weren't issued citations if troopers, using the new technology, validated their insurance coverage.
DPS plans to issue a report of its findings when the pilot is completed.
A portion of the vehicle registration fee is paying for a $7 million contract with HDI solutions Inc.
Still, you've got those big roads so that'll work out alright.
Fateweaver wrote:Cali doesn't matter except to teen girls who want to know the latest fashions and to crackpots who believe Matt Damon's and Sean Penn's view of the US actually matters.
It has the eighth largest economy in the world, apparently. I'm guessing that's fairly important.
Frazzled wrote:Texas also has MD Anderson, best cancer and heart center in the world. Ask all the Latin American dictators who fly here.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to ordinary working-class people with cancer who live in Alaska or Wisconsin, or somewhere else that's like, a zillion miles away...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:25% of the population is doesn't speak English either whats your point?
Frazzled wrote:25% of the population is doesn't speak English either whats your point?
Colour me tickled but, upon my honour, neither do you.
What was your point ? People go to Great Ormond Street for treatment as well. Hell, people go to Cuba even, and not just for cigar and cocktails treatment.
Go to San Antonio and turn south. Spanish is required at that point, but the telenovellas are to inspired.
Ay Maria!
Sorry, find me someone who went to Cuba for medical care again? I am not sure how this relates, of course I am not sure how these posts are relating to each other at this point.
but who cares, we've discovered something far more important to discuss-telenovellas!
Sorry, find me someone who went to Cuba for medical care again?
FRom Wiki, but there's loads of other links
Cuba has been a popular medical tourism destination for more than 40 years. Thousands of patients travel to Cuba, particularly from Latin America and Europe, attracted by the "fine reputation of Cuban doctors, the low prices and nearby beaches on which to recuperate."[54] In 2006, Cuba attracted nearly 20,000 health tourists.[55]
Medical treatments included joint replacement, cancer treatment, eye surgery, cosmetic surgery and addictions rehabilitation. Costs are about 60 to 80 percent less than US costs.
Cuba has hospitals for Cuban residents and others that focus on serving foreigners and diplomats. In the 2007 American documentary film, Sicko, which criticizes the US healthcare system, producer Michael Moore leads a group of uninsured American patients to Cuba to obtain more affordable medical treatment. Sicko has greatly increased foreigners' interest in Cuban healthcare. A recent Miami Herald story focused on the high quality of health care that Canadian and American medical tourism patients receive in Cuba.[56]
The Cuban government has developed Cuban medical tourism to generate income for the country. Residents of Canada, the UK and most other countries can travel to Cuba without any difficulty, although a tourist visa is generally required. For Americans, however, because of the US trade policy towards Cuba, travelers must either obtain US government approval, or, more frequently, travel to Cuba from Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, Jamaica or the Dominican Republic. Cuban immigration authorities do not stamp the passports of US visitors so that Americans can keep their travels a private matter.
We'll ignore the Moore stuff for the sake of your blood pressure.
two of my "aunts" ( you know, those old friends of your mum has kind of thing) who live stateside have gone over for treatment, both had no trouble and were very happy with what they got.
United forever
In friendship and labor
Our mighty republics shall ever endure
The great Soviet Union
Will live through the ages
The dream of a people, their fortress secure
Long live our Soviet motherland!
Built by the people's mighty hand!
Long live her people united and free!
Strong in our friendship, tried by fire
Long may our crimson flag inspire
Shining in glory for all men to see!
Fateweaver wrote:Socialism might work in countries that have never had any other form of government (you know, you get used to it) but the US was not founded on socialist policies. Yeah if you go line by line there are probably SOME ties to what socialism represents (a fact only because liberals seem to want to bring this country in that direction).
From what I understand (and I'm sure I'll be flamed for not being a UC flunkie and knowing the facts exactly) Socialism revolves around the government controlling more of the aspects of an individuals life than the individual would be entitled to (say where his taxes go, what goods and services he HAS to pay for wether he wants them or not and being told how to run a business (unlike in a capitalist society).
...
...
...
There is no agreed definition of socialism. That is what give the wriggle room which lets right wingers claim it to be oppressive, and so.
No modern country was founded on socialist policies. They introduced them during the 19th and 20th century. I don't think there is any modern socialist country which could be described as genuinely oppressive -- does anyone in the USA really believe that the UK, Norway, Japan etc are fascistic authoritarian regimes?
There is no capitalism without a degree of government control. At the very least, weights and measures and contract law are governed by a different authority to the blind hand of the market. This has been true since the 14th century.
The country below us is Texas. Bah. I thought you were edumacated Orkeo.
To Alba, Cali is so far in debt that it needs to write IOU's to to people instead of issuing paychecks. Might have the 8th largest world economy but probably 2nd most broke (behind the whole of the US of A).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Indeed. Almost an honourary Brit, no?
LOL, totally. He has that 'I'm not yet sure whether or not I agree with you, so in the mean time I'm just going to mock you for being SO earnest' thing going on.
pombe wrote:Now, I understand that your question is based on hyperbole and that you wanted to take an extreme case to make a point, but are you saying that it wouldn't work?
As an accountant who’s spent most of his professional life preparing budgets for various government bodies, and having read countless public submissions I can tell you one basic truth about the public’s idea of government expenditure – they have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. Most don’t read the budget and rely on second and third hand anecdotes (mostly apocryphal). The rest will attempt to read the budget, but are incapable or unwilling to read it accurately and use it to make nonsense charges.
Not knowing how money needs to be spent isn’t the fault of the average guy on the street - he doesn’t have the time to read through thousands of reports and submissions that are part of every budget process. He shouldn’t be expected to read the engineering reports detailing future roadworks requirements. He shouldn’t be expected to read the assessment of future infrastructure replacement, indicating the reserves needed to ensure future sustainability. He might have read in the paper that health advances have made a new machine available to improve cancer treatment, and he might be outraged that no machines are being purchased in next year’s budget, but he wouldn’t know that such machines have been sought and won’t be available for purchase for 18 months.
The public deserves a say in how their money is spent – they elect politicians on their behalf. That’s what representative democracy is.
JEB_Stuart wrote:To be fair Whatwhat, the US has a longer history of being anti-socialist then the Cold War. Even in the early 20th Century there was a large amount of anti-socialism in the US. Sure Eugene Debbs had started to attract followers, but most Americans are far too individualistic to buy into the whole "group" notion...
Yeah, the US reaction to the October Revolution is a pretty clear example that the US had a strong anti-Socialist focus. They piled funding into support of the Whites during the civil war. Then again, the famine relief provided by the US to the USSR in the ‘20s probably allowed the USSR to survive… so it’s a complicated thing.
The critical response to the New Deal also contained a lots of charges of socialism, so it isn’t as though labelling progressive campaigns socialist is a new thing. Probably the biggest change is how omni-present the political debate is these days, while we’ve got 24 hour news and constant internet updates we don’t have much more political substance, so there’s a lot more space to fill with political rhetoric like complaining about socialism.
Fateweaver wrote:The whole "take a number" thing is BS. It's BS at the DMV or anywhere else, it's BS at a clinic.
If I walk into a clinic in pain because my arm is broken I should be admitted right away, not made to wait behind 15 other people their to get weight loss meds or diabetes meds or anything that CAN wait a few hours.
What? What made you decide that universal health meant that there could be no priority system for emergency cases?
Fateweaver wrote:I know. Guns are illegal in Oz so we should ban guns too.
No, they aren’t. At some point you’re going to have to learn of the world outside of political rhetoric, where ‘handguns purchased for self defence and semi-automatic rifles outside of those required for farming are no longer legal’ is a very different thing to ‘guns are banned’.
FITZZ wrote: well Orkeo,at least Alba is ONLY kissing it.
There are worse things on earth than making out with Alba... depending on the Alba in question, of course.
Dude, you are aware that Socialism isn't an alternative to Democracy, yes?
My money would be on no.
You could be a Nazi too, I guess.
Orkeosaurus wrote:It's the country right below us, duh. Don't you study maps?
Actually I meant the phrase on the coin. Ignoring the obvious idiocy of the speaking Mexican statement.
I can't read it, because I'm not Mexican, can't you see my flag (the computer one)?
Fateweaver wrote:The country below us is Texas. Bah. I thought you were edumacated Orkeo.
I thought Texas was part of the US. I might be wrong though.
Also, I think you mispelled "educated". You should probably remember too spell check.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:This is the trouble with Orkeo...you can never be sure when he's just taking the piss.
Why would I be on my computer if I was taking a piss?
Tx is a whole 'nother country. Ask Frazz.
You need to learn to speak Mexican Orkeo so you can communicate with the 10's of millions more illegals that will come into this country to take part in our BS healthcare program.
Frazzled wrote:25% of the population is doesn't speak English either whats your point?
And the other 75% speaks it poorly. What's your point?
Whats yours?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Shuma wrote:ALL COUNTRIES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST ARE IN SOME WAY SOCIALIST. THE TERM IS DEBASED AND OVERTLY BROAD TO THE POINT OF MEANINGLESSNESS.
America isn't socialist. We're a democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
efarrer wrote:Though of course you are aware North Korea's not actually a socialist state.
It's a dictatorship.
Dude, you are aware that Socialism isn't an alternative to Democracy, yes?
Thats kinid of the crux of the argument yes?
You don't view it that way. Many here do. Freedom vs. government control. Socialism is a word for government control.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Orkestra wrote:Orkeosaurus: Saviour of Threads
If I wanted banality I would watch children talk to each other or go to 4chan.
thats trolling. If I were Modding this thread you'd be getting private messages about now. If you don't like the thread don't post.
Actually you think that is the question. It is not.
I restate. Others disagree and believe socialism is a word for government control. The more socialist, the further you are down the government control spectrum.
I have to admit in place where I see it invoked heavily, state control is pretty onerous.
Frazzled wrote:Actually you think that is the question. It is not.
I restate. Others disagree and believe socialism is a word for government control. The more socialist, the further you are down the government control spectrum.
I have to admit in place where I see it invoked heavily, state control is pretty onerous.
Except that's not how it actually works
Socialism and capitalism are both forms of economic systems, each in it's pure form at opposite ends of the scale.
Dictatorship and Democracy are both political systems, both at either end of the scale.
A socialist democracy is just as likely as a capitalist dictatorship.
Frazzled wrote:Actually you think that is the question. It is not.
I restate. Others disagree and believe socialism is a word for government control. The more socialist, the further you are down the government control spectrum.
I have to admit in place where I see it invoked heavily, state control is pretty onerous.
Except that's not how it actually works
Socialism and capitalism are both forms of economic systems, each in it's pure form at opposite ends of the scale.
Dictatorship and Democracy are both political systems, both at either end of the scale.
A socialist democracy is just as likely as a capitalist dictatorship.
Well, I agree that a socialist democracy is as unlikely to happen as a capitalist dictatorship. The focus of socialism, and most socialist reforms, is caring for the people, and making sure they are ok. This becomes an issue when the people realize that no matter what they do, they'll be ok because the government will take care of all of their needs. At that point you get a codependent populace, one that gradually loses individual initiative and drive. This may take several generations to show, but whatever democracy you started with will quickly become at best a republic, as a large block of people stop voting or examining the issues before they vote.
This loss of autonomy, individuality and eventually the drive for freedom is what Americans fear. It is irrational, since anyone worried about such a fate has the basic morale fiber to avoid it, but that doesn't decrase its power. I imagine that if all of my needs were cared for, I would care far less about what our government was doing. That's why we don't let people too young to work vote.
My point, such as it is, is that taking away the need for effort and initiative will deprive a democracy of the interested voters it needs to continue being anything resembling the will of the people. Whether the government controls the people or not is irrelevant if they have no will to stand against you.
Places like Norway are socialist by the democratic choice of the people. The government is merely the agent for carrying out the people's wishes. The government is strong and is able to pass laws with a socialist purpose because it has the support of the people.
Kilkrazy wrote:Places like Norway are socialist by the democratic choice of the people. The government is merely the agent for carrying out the people's wishes. The government is strong and is able to pass laws with a socialist purpose because it has the support of the people.
Thats what North Korea says too. The people's wishes is just a point of view. At the end of the day its still someone with power telling those without power what to do.
US government was designed so that government wouldn't have the power to interfere in the first place.
Gitzbitah wrote:Well, I agree that a socialist democracy is as unlikely to happen as a capitalist dictatorship.
Are you saying capitalist dictatorships are rare? That's just wrong. Off the top of my head the following have all had capitalist dictatorships at one time - Cuba, Chile, Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina.
Right now China is opening its markets and turning to a capitalist economy while maintaining party control.
My point, such as it is, is that taking away the need for effort and initiative will deprive a democracy of the interested voters it needs to continue being anything resembling the will of the people. Whether the government controls the people or not is irrelevant if they have no will to stand against you.
The countries you'd likely deem as 'socialist' have far greater voter turnouts than the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Thats kinid of the crux of the argument yes?
You don't view it that way. Many here do. Freedom vs. government control. Socialism is a word for government control.
Which only works if you construct freedom purely in terms of an absence of government control. At this would make Somalis more free than any of us, it's generally considered a fairly useless way of looking at things.
The rest of us realise the right amount of government can increase the power in the hands of the average citizen. For instance, open access to education allows someone born to impoverished parents to have a profession. The idea that any increase in government is a decrease in freedom is lazy, lazy thinking.
I can tell when I'm ill informed. I don't have a wide knowledge of foreign governments or economics. To me, the principles underlying capitalism and a dictatorship seem irreconcilable as those between a socialist state and a democracy. That being said, I wasn't aware of any of the examples you have pointed out. I think I'll just withdraw from discussing this particular political theory. I don't the real world knowledge necessary for a vigorous debate. I will be watching with interest though- thanks to sebster and killkrazy for broadening my horizons.
Gitzbitah wrote:I can tell when I'm ill informed. I don't have a wide knowledge of foreign governments or economics. To me, the principles underlying capitalism and a dictatorship seem irreconcilable as those between a socialist state and a democracy. That being said, I wasn't aware of any of the examples you have pointed out. I think I'll just withdraw from discussing this particular political theory. I don't the real world knowledge necessary for a vigorous debate. I will be watching with interest though- thanks to sebster and killkrazy for broadening my horizons.
Not a problem, mate. If you have some time down the track I'd recommend reading about Pinochet's Chile. It's the classic example of a democratic socialist government being overthrown by a right wing coup, in between torturing and killing fellow citizens Pinochet brought in a range of capitalist reforms.
Milton Friedman made an interesting point about capitalism/socialism and democracy/dictatorship. He said that while it was plenty easy to have a capitalist dictatorship, it wasn't really possible to have a socialist democracy. The fact that you require the government's employment for all of your needs forces too much conformity on the populace, even if the government is not actively attempting to do so, and this stasis means the government will slowly slide into corruption and social totalitarianism. The lack of difference in income also makes it impossible for a new thinker to recieve the patronage of someone with the power to spread a new idea. Then there's the inherent power of the centralized bureaucracy.
Of course, this is a criticism of the Marxist "government controls all of the means of production" socialism, not of Scandinavian style "taxes and public services are very high" socialism. Scandinavian countries are really about a 50-50 mix of state and private economic power.
The rest of us realise the right amount of government can increase the power in the hands of the average citizen. For instance, open access to education allows someone born to impoverished parents to have a profession. The idea that any increase in government is a decrease in freedom is lazy, lazy thinking.
I guess we're just ignorant hicks here compared to you enlightened lot. The poster asked for US views. I supplied some. I didn't need to attacked by you self styled enlightened people (excuse me I had to throw up a little on that one). Oh well so much for this thread.
sebster wrote:
As an accountant who’s spent most of his professional life preparing budgets for various government bodies, and having read countless public submissions I can tell you one basic truth about the public’s idea of government expenditure – they have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.
Frazzled wrote:I guess we're just ignorant hicks here compared to you enlightened lot. The poster asked for US views. I supplied some. I didn't need to attacked by you self styled enlightened people (excuse me I had to throw up a little on that one). Oh well so much for this thread.
When was it decided that no-one could ever point out the fallacy in an opinion?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Milton Friedman made an interesting point about capitalism/socialism and democracy/dictatorship. He said that while it was plenty easy to have a capitalist dictatorship, it wasn't really possible to have a socialist democracy. The fact that you require the government's employment for all of your needs forces too much conformity on the populace, even if the government is not actively attempting to do so, and this stasis means the government will slowly slide into corruption and social totalitarianism. The lack of difference in income also makes it impossible for a new thinker to recieve the patronage of someone with the power to spread a new idea. Then there's the inherent power of the centralized bureaucracy.
I think he has a point, when it comes to communist countries. It didn't stop him heading over to China to give technical advice, but he has a point.
When it comes to state controlled industry, it makes intuitive sense - if individuals lose economic power they lose power to resist the state. It certainly holds up historically, no regime built around a state planned economy has much of a human rights record. One of the major failings* of modern communist thought is the unwillingness to address this issue - I'm not sure if there's a solution but they're not even willing to concede there might be a problem.
It doesn't extend to more countries built around the Scandanavian model, market systems with strong layers of social intervention - turns out tax isn't the same thing government ownership, I guess.
*One of - there's a lot of others. Hoo boy there's a lot.
What I think most Americans miss is just how socialist our country is to begin with. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security... the Armed Forces for cripes sake... are all forms of socialism to some extent.
Only recently in US politics has the word "socialist" become a term used to frighten uneducated voters. Much like gay marriage, and the terribly scary illegals; socialism is the new hot button issue being used as a tool to get elected.
Frazzled wrote:I guess we're just ignorant hicks here compared to you enlightened lot. The poster asked for US views. I supplied some. I didn't need to attacked by you self styled enlightened people (excuse me I had to throw up a little on that one). Oh well so much for this thread.
You know, it is possible for someone to criticize you without calling you an ignorant hick. Seriously, you need to pull yourself out of this knee-jerk "I'm a persectured conservative" mentality. Especially if you're going to talk to people about avoiding thread they don't like.
I've been mulling this question around in my head for a while lately.
I used to be pretty socialist, still am, but I'm starting to question certain aspects of it.
I believe that the state should be benevolent, and give a hand to those who through misfortune or bad circumstance have messed up or found themselves in a sticky situation.
And I believe too that prisons should be about rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Lastly, I reckon schools are vital to social cohesian and getting everyone onto a level playing field, and I'm a big advocate of giving everyone every chance to get educated.
But each of these things I believe in is really friggin' difficult to achieve, and comes with an ethical counterpoint.
Welfare is supposed to help those in need. Ireland, as an example, has extremely generous welfare, even after it's been cut severely. Where I'm working at the moment, lots of people are on welfare and lots of the kids I teach are socially disadvantaged to a massive degree. So we do all sorts for them. I buy their copies for them, sort them out with pens, we buy their books for them, the school gets extra resources for learning support and IT solutions and so on. The kids are woeful. They forget copybooks constantly. They never hang on to pens, and need new ones every day. They lose books. They don't keep track of things on their timetables. They go on diatribes about how crappy the school is, when in fact it's definitely one of the best equipped in the area.
Where I grew up, there were people of equal disadvantage going to my school. And living in the countryside, it was even harder for them to get their books and copies and so on- they needed to get a bus into town. My students have to walk for 2 minutes in any direction to get to a bookshop.
And yet, it was pretty unheard of for students to show up without copies, even though they had to buy them themselves. They had to buy all their own pens and stuff too. And my school was much worse in terms of equipment and quality of teaching staff. So it seems to me to be a social problem with the handout culture the kids are in.
But I mean, you obviously can't just cut welfare to these families, they need to get out of the poverty trap they're in. But there's no dire incentive for that to happen, and not enough social workers to ensure it happens the other way.
Same is true in prisons- they make half hearted attempts at rehab, but they're understaffed and can't really manage it, so it doesn't really work.
Both of these systems suffer from the fact that they dilute individual responsibility, and I think it's actually pretty bad for the people that it does that to. Without them, the situation would be worse, I think, but they are so far from correctly run that the situation is pretty bad and pretty expensive on the tax payer anyway.
As to equal educational advantage, the biggest part of this is that certain schools end up as sinks or educational ghettos, and others only take the best students. In Ireland this divide is often between private and public schools, but some church run public schools are pretty selective too, even though they shouldn't be.
Part of me says that students should be randomly assigned a school within a certain distance, and then the schools should be assigned resources based on the resultant profile. Private schools should be disbanded as they contribute to ghettoisation.
But then, you're taking away the right of choice from parents- be it choice to send their kids to a school of a certian ethos (protestant, catholic, muslim) or to spend the money they have earned on private education which has more resources. I mean, your money is your money, and spending it on your kids is something I applaud. I'm not comfortable with stopping that, even for what I see as a fairly noble goal.
Tl, dr: It's all very complicated and there are good arguments on all sides of the issue. Science was way eaiser than this social policy malarkey
Dogma, hate to point this out mate, but dakka aint no democracy. If we dont like it, we hit the road.
Even mention the Catholic Church in a negative light and the thread gets locked. Ive noticed a few of the Irish lads do it several times the last 3 or 4 months and they are locked faster than greased weasel gak!
Dont let it bother you, im man enough to admit id probably be a tad unfair if it was my train set and i was arguing about Creationism with Orlanth.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Milton Friedman made an interesting point about capitalism/socialism and democracy/dictatorship. He said that while it was plenty easy to have a capitalist dictatorship, it wasn't really possible to have a socialist democracy. The fact that you require the government's employment for all of your needs forces too much conformity on the populace, even if the government is not actively attempting to do so, and this stasis means the government will slowly slide into corruption and social totalitarianism. The lack of difference in income also makes it impossible for a new thinker to recieve the patronage of someone with the power to spread a new idea. Then there's the inherent power of the centralized bureaucracy.
The same critique from human nature applies to the hypothetical capitalist dictatorship. Anyone given absolute authority is likely to exercise it in ways which do not bear the interests of the capitalist system in mind; initiating a slow slide into corruption, whether intentional or not. This problem is further compounded if the dictatorship is the sort of place in which rightness is established by the word of the dictator.
In fairness, you can slam the catholic church as a political organisation without it being a criticism of all the decent catholics out there.
The church as an organisation in some areas is pretty poor.
The thing that annoys me about the Irish situation is that we all focus on the church and it's not often mentioned that they'd never have gotten away with it if there was proper government oversight.
Anyhow. OT. Sorry.
One thing I see a lot of americans talking about is personal charity.
I think that's great, and lots of the americans I have known have been big on charity and volunteering especially. My worry would be that if there's animosity against a certain group in society from a large amount of people (and those well off in particular) then they wouldn't get much help. The state has to look after everyone (or it should, anyway) so it can do a more thorough job.
What do ye think of that?
Frazzled wrote:Was there commentary about me again? The Ignore button is a wondrous tool for the blood pressure. Fritos, less so.
Dude, I criticised your opinion, and your response to that made this about you. Don't act all surprised when subsequent posts mention you.
And should mods be using the ignore button? How can you moderate when you're avoiding posters?
Ignore beats ban doesn't it? If we didn't have IGNORE Malf would have gone on a berserk rage ages ago, banning half the board, icnluding you, me, and crazily enough Yakface. I SAW WHAT YOU WROTE ON THE BATHROOM STALL MALF ABOUT YAKFACE. YOUR SECRET IS OUT!!!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:First of all, if you wish to post in this thread, please do so only to answer my question, THEN debate. Not too concerned about hyperbole from either side of the fence, or indeed those sitting upon said fence.
So, Socialism eh? I have to say, I really don't understand the US objection to this style of Government. Okay, Britain isn't exactly a Socialist Country in the same way as France, but what with the NHS etc, we do have a definite Socialist Infrastructure. Having grown up with it, I find myself somewhat unable to comprehend why you would object to such things as Free Healthcare, Social Housing etc. Quick caveat, I am not saying you are wrong for objecting/not wanting it, I am just putting a question out there.
Now for my take. As I said, I have grown up in something of a Socialist Soceity. I think we all know the immediate cons of this (people taking the piss, higher taxation). But for the NHS etc, I am all in favour. I wasn't a terribly well child, and had it not been for the NHS, my family would be in pretty deep debt thanks to things beyond human control (not counting the disastrous arm/window interface). Plus I have lost my job a few times through Redundancy, and although not much the social security I received enabled me to job hunt more effectively. Sure, I am an example of someone using the system, rather than exploiting it, but that's my point of view based on my own experiences.
So, Fire Extinguishers at the ready, and off we go....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and as regular contributors to my threads might know, I'm not looking to set anyone up here and then shoot down their point of view. Just a rational discussion about the pros and cons as other people see them.
Heres why I don't like the idea of socialism MDS:
"Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of either state ownership and/or worker ownership and administration of the means of production" -taken from wikipedia.org
I prefer the idea of private ownership. If I want to open a factory, I believe I should have ownership of my factory. I think alot of Americans don't like the idea of the government getting their grubby little paws on anything a person could claim as their own. The idea of the state being entirely or mostly in control of the economy is horrifying to me. As stated earlier in this thread, its plausible that the state having more control over financial institutuions, (like stores and banks) than the common man, could easily lead to corruption and loss of freedom for the average joe. Losing any freedoms I currently have, is my worst nightmare.
Have you ever played the video game "Bioshock"? Early in the game, the character Andrew Ryan gives a speech, I've included it here. Theres some extra stuff from the game, but the speech is what I want you to see.
I for one would like to think that I am entitled to the sweat of my brow. One should recieve compensation for their work, nothing less, and nothing more. Capatalism is based on the idea that if you want something, you must earn it first. Now in "Bioshock" things go horribly wrong when people try to live in an entirely objectivist, lessaz faire capatalistic society. I think all things in life must be taken in moderation. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing, yes? So it's good to have some socialist institutions in your capatalist country, thats almost undeniable. Programs like WIC, medicare, foodstamps, social security, housing so on and so forth can be good. But when every or most aspects of life are run by a government controlled beuracracy you've got too much of a good thing again. I think the best way to go about it is to achieve balance. If i had things my way we'd have programs like this, ideally run by private groups, like the many charities Bill Gates sponsers, without government control. It would be a capatalist country, yet the rich would be taking care of the poor, of their own free choice. I feel that the evil of socialism is when it's no longer a choice but manditory. The smaller our government, and the more freedoms that we have, the happier I'll be. I hope that helps give you an idea of what some Yanks are thinking and of course YMMV. If you are happy living in a socialist country, than that is good news. I don't want anyone thinking that I'm trying to insult their nation or anything, so just to be clear YMMV and to each his own.
Norwulf wrote:Heres why I don't like the idea of socialism MDS:
"Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of either state ownership and/or worker ownership and administration of the means of production" -taken from wikipedia.org
Socialism is a complicated thing, with many differing meanings and you can't really go off of a wiki definition to get the full story. What you're referring to, state ownership of the means of production, is typically called communism. Socialism normally refers to a high level of intervention in the economy, stopping short of complete government control. But the exact meaning of each term does vary depending on the context.
And yeah, its good to have moderation - which is why the successful, democratic countries in the world have all moved to economies built around markets and private capital, moderated by socialist policies like minimum wage, progressive taxation and welfare.
Its all relative to how national character deals with the idea of control. America is hyper individual and super competitive. The Greater Good here is me fething you over to get me more money.
sebster wrote:Socialism is a complicated thing, with many differing meanings and you can't really go off of a wiki definition to get the full story. What you're referring to, state ownership of the means of production, is typically called communism. Socialism normally refers to a high level of intervention in the economy, stopping short of complete government control. But the exact meaning of each term does vary depending on the context.
And yeah, its good to have moderation - which is why the successful, democratic countries in the world have all moved to economies built around markets and private capital, moderated by socialist policies like minimum wage, progressive taxation and welfare.
True. As much as I hate admitting Shuma Gorbachiev was right, he was totally right when he said that most countries nowadays are in some form or another, socialist. The major issue for me is how high that government intervention goes. I'd like it if it could lean as far as practically, possible to free market capatalism as it can. I don't really see socialism as a scary boogey man, or a dirty word, as much as a necessary evil, we need sprinkled here and there. Because in all honesty a privatized fire department sounds like a bad idea. Now as far as communism goes, don't get me started on those fluid stealing bastards! Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water.....
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Its all relative to how national character deals with the idea of control. America is hyper individual and super competitive. The Greater Good here is me fething you over to get me more money.
and I wouldn't have it any other way. If i would, I'd move to Canada or something.
True. As much as I hate admitting Shuma Gorbachiev was right, he was totally right when he said that most countries nowadays are in some form or another, socialist.
Why do people always hate to agree with me when they constantly agree with me?
True. As much as I hate admitting Shuma Gorbachiev was right, he was totally right when he said that most countries nowadays are in some form or another, socialist.
Why do people always hate to agree with me when they constantly agree with me?
Because it makes me feel like I need a shower. That and its very rare you and I see eye to eye. Ah brotherhood can be a nice feeling sometimes. Besides what better thread for us to agree with our fellow brother-man?
True. As much as I hate admitting Shuma Gorbachiev was right, he was totally right when he said that most countries nowadays are in some form or another, socialist.
Why do people always hate to agree with me when they constantly agree with me?
Your sex appeal.
The idea of the state being entirely or mostly in control of the economy is horrifying to me.
....err..... so, without being rude, how exactly do you think things like exchange rates, interest rates, monetary production etc etc should be controlled/set then ? As soon as you move into the realm of international finance/business the Govt. has to be involved.
Otherwise you wind up with influential news channels and/or newspapers being controlled by foreign moguls with no interest in the well being of the countries said companies are based in and...hmm ?.. what's that you're saying ?...oh...bugger.
@reds8n: Well in a perfect world we would have a totally free market without government intervention. But alas, our world is pot nerfect. So like I said, you gotta balance it out, have some of those nessecary evils I was talking about. A limited amount of state control is different than total or alot of state control. It's kind of like how alot of technical and customer support jobs that used to be here in the US, are being outsourced to India etc, and I'd like it if our government could help out with that. Maybe place some tariffs or something? I dunno honestly. Now what I just said may sound slightly... hypocritical, but luckily my massive ego prevents such labels from being atached to me, in my mind. So thats one crisis averted!
Do you not think the concept of there being a market, let alone a "free" one, at all requires the presence of a Govt. in the first place ? There's no such thing as a free market without Govt. intervention... how else are you going to issue, and therefore insure, currency value and genuineness, the worthiness of the goods sold, etc etc etc.
True. As much as I hate admitting Shuma Gorbachiev was right, he was totally right when he said that most countries nowadays are in some form or another, socialist.
Why do people always hate to agree with me when they constantly agree with me?
Because it makes me feel like I need a shower. That and its very rare you and I see eye to eye. Ah brotherhood can be a nice feeling sometimes. Besides what better thread for us to agree with our fellow brother-man?
Shuma's a pretty smart guy. I think he'll do well once he's out of high school.
Norwulf wrote:@reds8n: Well in a perfect world we would have a totally free market without government intervention. But alas, our world is pot nerfect. So like I said, you gotta balance it out, have some of those nessecary evils I was talking about. A limited amount of state control is different than total or alot of state control. It's kind of like how alot of technical and customer support jobs that used to be here in the US, are being outsourced to India etc, and I'd like it if our government could help out with that. Maybe place some tariffs or something? I dunno honestly. Now what I just said may sound slightly... hypocritical, but luckily my massive ego prevents such labels from being atached to me, in my mind. So thats one crisis averted!
True. As much as I hate admitting Shuma Gorbachiev was right, he was totally right when he said that most countries nowadays are in some form or another, socialist.
Why do people always hate to agree with me when they constantly agree with me?
Because it makes me feel like I need a shower. That and its very rare you and I see eye to eye. Ah brotherhood can be a nice feeling sometimes. Besides what better thread for us to agree with our fellow brother-man?
Shuma's a pretty smart guy. I think he'll do well once he's out of high school.
Yeah, I think I'll rise to the top of the marxist commune quickly.
The plan is we're going to get him tatooed with the Dakka logo and have him go into modelling.*
Of course this may interfere with his destiny as a Vampire Slayer (the TV show was an elaboarte, and expensive, cover story) but we think he'll do alright.
Frazz is going to be Giles, only without all that high falluting book learni' (sp ?), Mr. Legoburner as Willow, Mr.KK as Spike -- he's about the same age -- Mr. Alpharius as Xander (without, hopefully the whole getting drunk and tasered thing) and I'll be Anya....err.....damn that short straw !
*And then use him to kill the presidents of Asian sweatshop based economies !
Yeah, I think I'll rise to the top of the marxist commune quickly.
LOL I'm glad to see your such a responsible citizen. Social programs are key to the glorious strength of our wonderful proletarian order comrade!
reds8n wrote:Do you not think the concept of there being a market, let alone a "free" one, at all requires the presence of a Govt. in the first place ? There's no such thing as a free market without Govt. intervention... how else are you going to issue, and therefore insure, currency value and genuineness, the worthiness of the goods sold, etc etc etc.
By trading beans and gold and using the barter system of course!
reds8n wrote:Of course this may interfere with his destiny as a Vampire Slayer (the TV show was an elaboarte, and expensive, cover story) but we think he'll do alright.
Frazz is going to be Giles, only without all that high falluting book learni' (sp ?), Mr. Legoburner as Willow, Mr.KK as Spike -- he's about the same age -- Mr. Alpharius as Xander (without, hopefully the whole getting drunk and tasered thing) and I'll be Anya....err.....damn that short straw !
This is now officially the best thread ever. Who gets to play Angel?
Ahtman wrote:So any progress? Any converts one way or the other?
I'm sure after all of my eloquent, thoughtful posts, chock-full of statistics, facts, and clear, concise logic. Someone surely sees the beauties of a more capatalistic society. It's only natural some of you would see the issue with a new light, thanks to useful, illustrative pictures and graphs like these:
Nothing?
The LOLcat was actually my first choice, but I couldn't get the picture to work. I can see that you are a worthy adversary my friend. Cunning. Very cunning indeed.
Norwulf wrote:Well in a perfect world we would have a totally free market without government intervention.
But what would this world look like? If you're going to differentiate a free market economy from anarchy you're forced to institute government intervention of some sort. Even at the most basic level the state must utilize taxation in order to fund the systems by which it maintains law and order, and taxation necessarily distorts the free market.
Norwulf wrote:Well in a perfect world we would have a totally free market without government intervention.
But what would this world look like? If you're going to differentiate a free market economy from anarchy you're forced to institute government intervention of some sort. Even at the most basic level the state must utilize taxation in order to fund the systems by which it maintains law and order, and taxation necessarily distorts the free market.
Wouldn't a perfect world be some sort of inconceivable pleasure realm where no hardship could exist? I hardly picture a perfect world having a market economy, or an economy at all.
The picture is from a game called Red Alert 3, where you get to command armies of the Soviet Union, the Allies, and the new Japanese Empire of the Rising Sun in an alternate timeline. It has movies with various actors in between games, including some fairly big names, Like Tim Curry as the Russian premier.
Ketara wrote:The picture is from a game called Red Alert 3, where you get to command armies of the Soviet Union, the Allies, and the new Japanese Empire of the Rising Sun in an alternate timeline. It has movies with various actors in between games, including some fairly big names, Like Tim Curry as the Russian premier.
Okay, cheers. I played the first Red Alert back in the day but lost interest in RTS some time later. My interest might be renewed.
This thread actually has some great examples well thought out points backed by facts and statistics that nice to see in the hellpit of dakka off-topic.
I think that there obviously has to be government control of things like the police force, military, roads etc. and in my opinion health care. but the basic core of the economy should allow for private competition. unfortunetly there is very little competition it is a few companies that have a monopoly over there sector. there is no room for th little guy.
youbedead wrote:This thread actually has some great examples well thought out points backed by facts and statistics that nice to see in the hellpit of dakka off-topic.
I think that there obviously has to be government control of things like the police force, military, roads etc. and in my opinion health care. but the basic core of the economy should allow for private competition. unfortunetly there is very little competition as China keeps buying up small chunks of the US at a time. there is no room for th little guy.
youbedead wrote:This thread actually has some great examples well thought out points backed by facts and statistics that nice to see in the hellpit of dakka off-topic.
I think that there obviously has to be government control of things like the police force, military, roads etc. and in my opinion health care. but the basic core of the economy should allow for private competition. unfortunetly there is very little competition as China keeps buying up small chunks of the US at a time. there is no room for th little guy.
Fixed your typo.
You know what's funny? If government regulated business didn't work they wouldn't have the money to do that.
....err..... so, without being rude, how exactly do you think things like exchange rates, interest rates, monetary production etc etc should be controlled/set then ? As soon as you move into the realm of international finance/business the Govt. has to be involved.
I hate to be a buzzkill, but in most areas, exchange rates are set by the market.
Interest rates are generally set by the market. When state banks try to manipulate too much, the market shifts out of phase. This is occurring now.
Monetary policy is set by the government, but its impact is not set by the government.
Much international regulation of finance is actually set by the bankers and affirmed by the central banks/regulatory entities if at all, later. Basell II. The Swiss skiers strike back!
Interest rates are set, over here, mainly by the BoE which, effectively, is controlled by the Chancellor/ at least his policies. You can only have exchange rates when a currency is "proven" to be viable and secure (ie it's not all fake ) which, astonishingly enough, is done by the Govt.
Who actually produces/prints the money.. the mint which is etc etc etc.
reds8n wrote: All of which is regulated by the Govt.
Interest rates are set, over here, mainly by the BoE which, effectively, is controlled by the Chancellor/ at least his policies. You can only have exchange rates when a currency is "proven" to be viable and secure (ie it's not all fake ) which, astonishingly enough, is done by the Govt.
Who actually produces/prints the money.. the mint which is etc etc etc.
Red, er, this is my business.
-You're mistaking certain rates set by the central bank of INSERT COUNTRY as THE interest rate. It aint.
-Several authoritarian governments try to peg their currency to other currencies with varying success. Central bnanks also try to influence it. But the joy of arbitrage sets the actual trade on a trade by trade basis.
We can have a nice involved discussion later I have to get a deal out this morning and go to two bank meetings with some fellow evil bankers. We'll smoke illegal Cuban cigars lit with a diversified portfolio of $100, E100, and BP100 notes. Hurray!
Yea, I went off to get coffee and started thinking about it. There's many different interest rates, in each developed country. Each country has its own mix. Government and private intereact here to create official rates, unofficial rates, different rates by interest product blah blah, and thats just the US. I should say you are right in that government has some part in it, depending on the rate and country (like everything I guess). Whats interesting is the little things, like the US corporate market bank lending is driven by London interest rates for homes... LIBOR YOU ARE MY MASTER COMMAND ME!!!!
You're litereally talking multiple fields and degrees to discuss. unfortunately all of them are way more itneresting than looking at an app for an acquisition yndication (meh bored bored). But then again we're talking about ian industry talking about Revolving Term Loans (how do Term loans revolve? Ah young Padiwon let us tell tales of the death of Kings, er CFOs...)
..it's 13:15 here and everyone is wacked out as we put the clocks forward 1 hour yesterday as it is *stares at rain clouds outside* "British Summer Time".
True to form some areas are forecast possible snow later in the week. See, other countries have a climate we have weather !
Frazzled wrote:Red, er, this is my business.
-You're mistaking certain rates set by the central bank of INSERT COUNTRY as THE interest rate. It aint.
-Several authoritarian governments try to peg their currency to other currencies with varying success. Central bnanks also try to influence it. But the joy of arbitrage sets the actual trade on a trade by trade basis.
You know what sucks? When Fraz is right. Fortunately it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
The first was Frazzled agreeing with Dogma.
The second was Frazzled agreeing with Sebster.
The fourth and final sign?
Frazzled agreeing with Shumagorath.
Then the sun shall dim and a horde of hellbeasts will descend.
Have to disagree with most of the above posters from the UK. Socialism has been dead in the UK since 1983. During Blair's rise to the top within the labour party, key pledges were abandoned and the party increasingly shifted from the left to Centre/Right.
To the American posters: Having just finished Early American history modules, you see in the early days of the colonies with the Puritan communities a reliance on each other as they build settlements and establish trade networks. Also due to vast distances between farms/villages etc there was a lot of dependance on each other for selling goods and doctors and midwives going from village to village helping people, and social mobility, as people went looking for work opportunities. Also, pre-revolution Philadelphia was a world leader in providing poor relief for the impovirished and for creating funds for the jobless and those who lost limbs in the 7 years wars. This early form of 'socialism' if you could call it that, is in the American DNA as it were. Maybe something changed much later? Attitudes or policy perhaps. Would be interested to hear some comments on it.
Da Boss wrote:The first was Frazzled agreeing with Dogma.
The second was Frazzled agreeing with Sebster.
The fourth and final sign?
Frazzled agreeing with Shumagorath.
Then the sun shall dim and a horde of hellbeasts will descend.
pombe wrote:Aren't there seven signs?
And would that mean Frazzled, Dogma, Sebster, and Shumagorath are the four horsemen?
Who gets to be Pestilence?
I did agree with Shuma as well in this thread, *shudder*. I think I even agreed with sebster somewhere back there. Thats got to be at least two signs there. With all these people criticizing those militia folks in Michigan, you'd think they'd be seeing the obvious signs. If we keep agreeing like this in the OT forum, I think we'll make reality crack. We need to start bickering pronto!
BTW I want the brunette on the far left, she looks like a naughty capatalist! I'd like to be her private healthcare provider.
