Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

I guess it would be a disaster.

I'll take Ben 'n Jerry's Chunky Monkey please.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pombe wrote:

I guess it would be a disaster.

I'll take Ben 'n Jerry's Chunky Monkey please.

It'd be a fun ride while it lasted, though

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.

Edit.. Dogma changed what he wrote a little bit.

Waitaminute...is Dakkadakka controlled by the Vatican?!
O_o

Was there commentary about me again? The Ignore button is a wondrous tool for the blood pressure. Fritos, less so.

Its not just the Catholic Church, but that seems to be the one people like to post threads to slam the most.

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?

sebster wrote:

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?

I think he meant that in jest. Obviously, a moderator would of done something like this to someone they hate criticizing them:

sebster wrote:
And should mods be using the ignore button? How can you moderate when you're avoiding posters?

Flagged posts.

sebster wrote:

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!!!

Frazzled wrote:I SAW WHAT YOU WROTE ON THE BATHROOM STALL MALF ABOUT YAKFACE. YOUR SECRET IS OUT!!!

Was there a number involved in this? If so, when I call this number, will I have a good time?

Just call 867-5309. Tell 'em Malf sent you.

Frazzled wrote:Just call 867-5309. Tell 'em Malf sent you.

Dude, that number is for an Italian take-out place. The gnocci was pretty good, but it really wasn't what I had in mind.

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?

ShumaGorath wrote:

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?

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Norwulf wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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!

Tell that to chinas economy.

But how free is US compared to these socialist countries?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Norwulf wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.