Success In Socialism

[Desertrat]

Ah, dear Hugo:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37786852

"Mountains of rotting food found at a government warehouse, soaring prices and soldiers raiding wholesalers accused of hoarding: Food supply is the latest battle in President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution."

But he naturally rails against "hoarders" while the government stockpiles for the favored few--but can't even do that right.

Gee. And he told the world how he was gonna make it all better for the people of Venezuela.

Socialists are very slow learners about reality.

[Black Macbook]

I'm not even going to say what Hugo reminds me of.:D

Hugo Chavez is not only a great socialist dictator and thug, but he's also a model democrat, according to some of the liberal elite in the US.

Sean Penn: Journalists who call Hugo Chávez a dictator should be jailed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/sean-penn-hugo-chavez-venezuela

http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/Penn.jpg

I'm not a journalist, but if Sean Penn is not too busy with plugging any leaks in his boats, then he's welcome to sue me for calling his hero a dictator.
:)

[flopticalcube]

Hugo is Kim Jong Il's long lost twin brother.

[obeygiant]

I'm sure I don't know what socialism is.

[.Andy]

I'm sure I don't know what socialism is.
Neither does desertrat by the looks of it.

[Heilage]

Hugo Chavez is an actual socialist. Please remember that next time you get all riled up by Obama wanting to fix your country. :)

[Black Macbook]

Neither does desertrat by the looks of it.

Hugo Chavez is indeed a socialist. There's no need to deny reality or facts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/United_Socialist_Party_of_Venezuela_logo.gif/300px-United_Socialist_Party_of_Venezuela_logo.gif

[AP_piano295]

I'm not sure exactly what defines a socialist from a not socialist, but I basically want whatever type of government France has...

[Black Macbook]

but I basically want whatever type of government France has...

Your wishes are extremely frightening and disturbing, though I suppose that it's your right to have those sorts of thoughts. Even though Obama might be trying his best to turn the USA into some sort of failed European socialist welfare state, you will never be truly happy here, so you might as well pack up and move to the place of your dreams, because the USA will never turn into France.

[catfish743]

"I still call myself a communist, because communism is no more what Russia made of it than Christianity is what the churches make of it.

[Ugg]

The reason Chavez is so popular is because the poor and indigenous of Venezuela were held over a barrel for years.

How's that saying go? You reap what you sow?

I'm by no means defending Chavez, he's a slimeball of the first order, but anyone who thinks he just popped out of the woodwork needs to take a look at the failures of American imperialism in South America.

We really need to stop meddling in affairs outside our borders.

[flopticalcube]

I'm not sure exactly what defines a socialist from a not socialist, but I basically want whatever type of government France has...
France is a democratic Republic, just like the US.

[Black Macbook]

I'm by no means defending Chavez, he's a slimeball of the first order, but anyone who thinks he just popped out of the woodwork needs to take a look at the failures of American imperialism in South America.

We really need to stop meddling in affairs outside our borders.

Oh yeah, Hugo Chavez is partially our fault of course! We are to blame! Why didn't I think of that one? I forgot all about the liberal narrative. I'm sure that if it wasn't for the USA, then Hugo Chavez wouldn't have become a socialist-thug-dictator running a brutal leftist totalitarian failure of a country. If the USA had never existed, then Hugo Chavez would have certainly been a noble leader, and there would be peace and prosperity all over the entire planet.
:D

[AP_piano295]

Oh yeah, Hugo Chavez is partially our fault of course! We are to blame! Why didn't I think of that one? I forgot all about the liberal narrative. I'm sure that if it wasn't for the USA, then Hugo Chavez wouldn't have become a socialist-thug-dictator running a brutal leftist totalitarian failure of a country. If the USA had never existed, then Hugo Chavez would have certainly been a noble leader, and there would be peace and prosperity all over the entire planet.
:D

Life is really a video game or an action movie in your eyes isn't it. You Imagine a world where America walks around rescuing puppies and children for Communist rapists. Where everything we do is done for freedom, justice, and momma's apple pie.

[AP_piano295]

Your wishes are extremely frightening and disturbing, though I suppose that it's your right to have those sorts of thoughts. Even though Obama might be trying his best to turn the USA into some sort of failed European socialist welfare state, you will never be truly happy here, so you might as well pack up and move to the place of your dreams, because the USA will never turn into France.

What is so bad about France? If you really don't want France I'll take Denmark but with French food.

[Black Macbook]

Life is really a video game or an action movie in your eyes isn't it. You Imagine a world where America walks around rescuing puppies and children for Communist rapists. Where everything we do is done for freedom, justice, and momma's apple pie.

Not at all. The USA sometimes acts to protect it's own interests, either economic or otherwise, as any country does, and there's not always noble goals behind it. There's no need to apologize for acting in your own best interests. Luckily for the USA, we are powerful enough to actually act upon those interests more so and more effectively than most other countries.

Forget about all the "spreading freedom" crap, some people don't even deserve it. We should just deliver smackdowns when needed and then leave.

[CorvusCamenarum]

I'm not sure exactly what defines a socialist from a not socialist, but I basically want whatever type of government France has...

A government subject to strikes and protests when it announces it's raising the retirement age to a whopping 62?

[CaptMurdock]

Not at all. The USA sometimes acts to protect it's own interests, either economic or otherwise, as any country does, and there's not always noble goals behind it. There's no need to apologize for acting in your own best interests. Luckily for the USA, we are powerful enough to actually act upon those interests more so and more effectively than most other countries.

Forget about all the "spreading freedom" crap, some people don't even deserve it. We should just deliver smackdowns when needed and then leave.

In other words, Might Makes Right. Thank you for at least being up front about it.

[SwiftLives]

Not at all. The USA sometimes acts to protect it's own interests, either economic or otherwise, as any country does, and there's not always noble goals behind it. There's no need to apologize for acting in your own best interests. Luckily for the USA, we are powerful enough to actually act upon those interests more so and more effectively than most other countries.

Forget about all the "spreading freedom" crap, some people don't even deserve it. We should just deliver smackdowns when needed and then leave.

Sort of like we did in Vietnam, right? And Iraq? Sure! Why don't we add Venzuela to the list as another example of American Supremacy!

And Chavez was elected. You know - democratic elections and all.

Granted, I don't like the little @#$!. I'm just curious as to what you think the justification would be to go in and remove him? I mean, other than flat-out arrogance and waving our collective genitalia in Venezuela's face. And what exactly would that accomplish?

Oh yeah. Venezuela has oil. Eminent Domain then?

[fivepoint]

http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chemical-connections/035ostrich_468x538.jpg

Nope. Socialism is definitely not the problem here.
Move along... move along.

[AP_piano295]

A government subject to strikes and protests when it announces it's raising the retirement age to a whopping 62?

Honestly, yes.

Doing a little reading...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/10326002.stm

It sounds like this change is a necessary one, the people are pissed about it and they're protesting (you know like all the protests when the heath care bill was coming together). Of course it looks like some reform is necessary so the government is sticking to their guns because it often important to make the logical choice which are supported by the numbers.

Like the numbers which show that private sector heath care is vastly more expensive than a government run system.

[flopticalcube]

Like the numbers which show that public sector heath care is vastly more expensive than a government run system.
Private?

[AP_piano295]

Oh yeah, Hugo Chavez is partially our fault of course! We are to blame! Why didn't I think of that one? I forgot all about the liberal narrative. I'm sure that if it wasn't for the USA, then Hugo Chavez wouldn't have become a socialist-thug-dictator running a brutal leftist totalitarian failure of a country. If the USA had never existed, then Hugo Chavez would have certainly been a noble leader, and there would be peace and prosperity all over the entire planet.
:D

So do you know anything about America's meddling in South American affairs for the last 150 years?

[AP_piano295]

Private?

Thank you i'm lisdexic

[Zombie Acorn]

A government subject to strikes and protests when it announces it's raising the retirement age to a whopping 62?

My roommate just got back from Paris, he said most people try not to go to work till 10 and get off early also.

[flopticalcube]

My roommate just got back from Paris, he said most people try not to go to work till 10 and get off early also.
You know that is a crass generalization. If it were even remotely true, the French economy would be far smaller. From what I have seen in France, they tend to work slightly fewer hours and enjoy their free time more. Having at least 5 weeks of paid holiday a year helps too. While their per capita GDP is lower, they have more free time to enjoy. Its simply a tradeoff they have made.

[fivepoint]

Looks like they're going to have to try and raise the age of their retiree benefits just to make their ridiculous government pension program work... or risk plunging deeper into the red with the unsustainable system they've put in place. Sound familiar? Wonder what GM would have to say about all this. ;)

French strike over plans to raise retirement age (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iX7GDpHSg3XyRzplecLgPwEkuiTgD9GHLF200)
By CHRISTINA OKELLO (AP) – 2 hours ago
PARIS — Trains stood still and children played instead of studied as workers around France went on strike Thursday to protest President Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to raise the retirement age to 62.
Neighboring countries suffered along with Paris commuters, as walkouts by drivers delayed or canceled trains from Italy and Switzerland. Some flights were dropped or delayed.
Boisterous crowds of protesters filled Marseille's port and wide Paris avenues, as unions staged nearly 200 marches in several cities over a broad reform to the money-losing pension system, part of efforts around Europe to cut back on growing public debts.
"Sarkozy, Don't Touch our Pensions!" read one banner at the Paris march, near a cardboard coffin marked: "Here lies Roger. He's 60, and he died before getting his retirement."
France has one of Europe's lowest retirement ages, allowing workers to retire at 60 in most sectors. The government says the reform to the money-losing pension system is an "obligation," given France's burgeoning deficit and its aging population.
Unions say money for the pension system should come from higher taxes or charges on those who are still working, and see cost-cutting in the pension system as an attack on a hard-fought way of life.
Sebastien Sihr, secretary general of the SNUipp union, called the reform "a step backward."
"They are refusing to imagine other sources of funding," he told The Associated Press at the Paris march, where a crowd of thousands whistled and cheered, waving red, white and blue balloons under a hot summer sun.
Commuters, meanwhile, made do, some cramming into sweaty, overcrowded buses and subway trains.
Hundreds of passengers were stranded at Rome's main train station Wednesday when the overnight train to Paris was canceled because of the strike. Authorities were putting the passengers on buses instead. Swiss national railway company SBB said about 60 percent of trains between France and Switzerland have been canceled because of the strike.
The French civil aviation authority, DGAC, asked airlines to cancel 15 percent of their flights out of Paris' Charles de Gaulle and Orly airports because of strikes by air traffic controllers. Air France said long-haul flights would remain unaffected.
Commuter Stephanie Larcher, a 29-year-old town planner, from Buressuryvette, in the outskirts of Paris, said she's had to add an extra hour onto her daily four-hour journey.
"I find it completely irritating, especially because train workers go on strike for any little thing," she said.
About 20 percent of French teachers were on strike, according to the Education Ministry. Utility workers, postal workers, dock workers, workers at planemaker Airbus and some hospital workers also took part in the one-day walkout.
The French pension reform pales in comparison with more drastic changes elsewhere in Europe. Germany, for example, plans to gradually raise its retirement age from 65 to 67, starting in 2012.
Bernadette Douisson, the secretary general of the FSU union, said the French government's real concern should be boosting employment in a country where large numbers of young people and seniors can't get jobs.
Labor Minister Eric Woerth says the reform will save nearly euro19 billion ($29.3 billion) in 2018 and should bring the pension system back into the black that year.
The reform is scheduled to be instituted progressively and will also stretch out the total number of years people have to work to win full pension payments.
The Cabinet is to discuss the proposals in July, and they are expected to go before parliament next autumn.


http://www.examiner.com/x-16044-Christianity--Politics-Examiner~y2010m5d24-Riots-expected-in-France-as-spending-cuts-proposed-other-countries-continue-to-unravel
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/world/France%20hit%20%20by%20riots%20over%20%20pension%20age/-/1068/927102/-/9b26g9/-/

[fivepoint]

Socialists are very slow learners about reality.

Who would have ever thought that type of system would ever have any problems?
Too bad there are no lessons from history we can draw from so we knew where this 'socialism thing' was headed. :rolleyes:
http://defenseoftherepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/red_socialism.jpg

[flopticalcube]

Who would have ever thought that type of system would ever have any problems?
Too bad there are no lessons from history we can draw from so we knew where this 'socialism thing' was headed. :rolleyes:

Yes, because it has failed miserably in "socialistic" states such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands. On a sliding scale of 1-10 of socialism the US is a 1, most other countries are 2 or 3. Chavez and Castro are a 10. Let us please keep things in perspective.

[AP_piano295]

My roommate just got back from Paris, he said most people try not to go to work till 10 and get off early also.

30 hour work week, I believe it is law. It would do wonders for us, no more un-employment problems.

[AP_piano295]

Yes, because it has failed miserably in "socialistic" states such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands. On a sliding scale of 1-10 of socialism the US is a 1, most other countries are 2 or 3. Chavez and Castro are a 10. Let us please keep things in perspective.

Denmark is the happiest country on earth :)

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1

[flopticalcube]

30 hour work week, I believe it is law. It would do wonders for us, no more un-employment problems.
35-hour work week. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek)

The 35 hours was the legal standard limit, after which further working time was to be considered overtime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtime). The law has since been substantially weakened and exceptions have become established.

Some ideas look better on paper than in practice. I thought it was a stupid idea myself.

Denmark is the happiest country on earth

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4086092&page=1
You clearly don't know many Danes! ;)

[obeygiant]

Boy I don't know what socialism is but it sure sounds like pure heaven. If the USA were to take it over we'd probably be the best at it.

[flopticalcube]

Boy I don't know what socialism is but it sure sounds like pure heaven. If the USA were to take it over we'd probably be the best at it.
Its like donuts, nice in small amounts, especially the cream-filled kind...mmmmm..... but too much leads to fat, sloth and general sluggishness.

[Zombie Acorn]

You know that is a crass generalization. If it were even remotely true, the French economy would be far smaller. From what I have seen in France, they tend to work slightly fewer hours and enjoy their free time more. Having at least 5 weeks of paid holiday a year helps too. While their per capita GDP is lower, they have more free time to enjoy. Its simply a tradeoff they have made.

They work exactly 431 less hours per year compared to an American. Thats a little over an hour and a half less a weekday. My roommate also said that full hour to 2 hour lunch breaks were not uncommon. Personally I thought it sounded like a good idea, but I don't see how that could bode well for economic growth.

Boy I don't know what socialism is but it sure sounds like pure heaven. If the USA were to take it over we'd probably be the best at it.

if it were sustainable it would be heaven.

[flopticalcube]

They work exactly 431 less hours per year compared to an American. Thats a little over an hour and a half less a weekday. My roommate also said that full hour to 2 hour lunch breaks were not uncommon.
So from 90 minutes you get 10:00 AM starts, 2 hour lunch breaks and home early. They must use a different kind of math in France. Socialist math! :eek:

[Zombie Acorn]

So from 90 minutes you get 10:00 AM starts, 2 hour lunch breaks and home early. They must use a different kind of math in France. Socialist math! :eek:

Depends whether lunch breaks were excluded from "work hours" most people answer their work hours as 9-5 even if they get a half hour-hour lunch.

[Zombie Acorn]

On top of a 35 hour maximum work week. I think I want to move to france instead of canada.

http://pittnews.com/node/15515

Are you tired and overworked? Do you count time by the number of Starbucks cups that pile up in your cubicle? Welcome to working in America. But does it have to be this way? The French say "No." In fact, take a nap while you're at work - they'll even pay for it.

From the people who brought you Europe's shortest workweek - a 35-hour maximum - comes state-backed siestas. And with supporters like Ronald Reagan, Josef Stalin and Winston Churchill, how could this be a bad thing?

The Times reported yesterday that the siesta campaign, which began Tuesday, hopes to encourage the French to "sleep more and better." According to the article, 20 percent of accidents in France - both road and domestic - as well as low work efficiency, obesity and depression are blamed on tiredness. Health Minister Xavier Bertrand also pointed out that a driver who had been awake for 17 hours functioned with the same skill as someone with a blood alcohol level of 0.5g per liter, the legal limit in France.

The siestas will be more like "power naps" than lengthy naps. Employees will get a 15-minute paid break to take a nap every day after lunch. Does this mean that employees are going to be sleeping at their desks? The details are unclear, but what is clear is that this can only be a good thing.

[Eraserhead]

Looks like they're going to have to try and raise the age of their retiree benefits just to make their ridiculous government pension program work...

So will the US - the only reason they haven't done so yet is because the US government is less competent.

[Zombie Acorn]

So will the US - the only reason they haven't done so yet is because the US government is less competent.

You have to work for your own retirement in the US. Look at this guy planning ahead for his retirement.

http://fme.sincerethought.org/gallery/d/19035-2/grave.jpg

[Ugg]

My roommate just got back from Paris, he said most people try not to go to work till 10 and get off early also.

Yeah, well my sister just got back from Iowa and she said that all Iowans defecate in outhouses and use corncobs to clean up...

Heresay is meaningless.


France has done an admirable job in maintaining a certain quality of life. Actuarial tables however, rarely lie. France faces the same problem that all western countries do. A low birthrate means fewer workers in the future and the French are not immune from that. So far Sarkozy seems to be pushing through reform fairly well.

[fivepoint]

Yes, because it has failed miserably in "socialistic" states such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands. On a sliding scale of 1-10 of socialism the US is a 1, most other countries are 2 or 3. Chavez and Castro are a 10. Let us please keep things in perspective.

Ah yes... Sweden a Super Model for the United States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDAQWJbEl9U) to emulate.
I'm sure their relative success is definitely due to the socialized elements of their economy. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDAQWJbEl9U

[fivepoint]

Yeah, well my sister just got back from Iowa and she said that all Iowans defecate in outhouses and use corncobs to clean up...


Hey, don't blame us for being eco-concious! :eek:

[opinioncircle]

A government subject to strikes and protests when it announces it's raising the retirement age to a whopping 62?

Let me make it clear here. This is pure BS. The actual law says that the retiring age will be 62 for people who are 62 in 2018. After that, you can calculate your retirement age in a very simple way:

- you take the difference between the year you're born and the year 1951 (go figure why)
- you divide the total by 4

That will give you the total of years you have to add up to the 62 year old age of retirement.
In my own personal case, I am 23 and will retire at the age of 71. Yes, a whopping 62...Please get your facts straight fellow MR poster...

[CorvusCamenarum]

Let me make it clear here. This is pure BS. The actual law says that the retiring age will be 62 for people who are 62 in 2018. After that, you can calculate your retirement age in a very simple way:

- you take the difference between the year you're born and the year 1951 (go figure why)
- you divide the total by 4

That will give you the total of years you have to add up to the 62 year old age of retirement.
In my own personal case, I am 23 and will retire at the age of 71. Yes, a whopping 62...Please get your facts straight fellow MR poster...

Where are you getting this, because it's not covered in any article I've seen so far.

Marketwatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/france-to-raise-retirement-age-to-62-by-2018-2010-06-16)
Under the current rules, French employees can retire at 60 or after 40.5 years of social security contributions, whichever comes first. In the public sector, workers retire on 75% of their final six-month salary.

The goal of the proposals is that by 2018, French workers will retire at 62. The government had been considering raising it to 63.
...
The proposals will need to be approved by the French parliament in the fall but are potentially highly disruptive in a country where many public-sector workers currently retire at 50.

France24 (At the moment, anyone can retire at 65 on a full pension, even if they have not worked the full 40.5 years. Under the proposed new law this age would be raised to 67 by 2018.)
At the moment, anyone can retire at 65 on a full pension, even if they have not worked the full 40.5 years. Under the proposed new law this age would be raised to 67 by 2018.

[Desertrat]

Regardless of what the US did or did not do in Venezuela prior to Chavez, he came to power with promises of making it all better for the people. The reverse has been the case.

He announced policies which ran the monied citizens out of the country. His actions against the oil companies added to the distrust in the international financial community about making investments in Venezuela--and that economy was already in need of foreign investment.

His bureaucratic controls of the oil industry soon had the skilled, middle-management people exiting the country, as well. That led to gasoline shortages, internally, and a reduction of export sales.

His wastage of sorely-needed funds on war toys didn't help, either. His monetary policy led to a high inflation rate, which is what began this problem with food.

When you impose price controls, you're going to reduce availability. That's an invariant throughout history. (You younguns weren't around during WW II when we indeed had shortages due to price controls. Oh, and again during Nixon's tenure.)

Socialism? Chavez thinks he's a socialist; he says so. Worldwide, the media has accepted that label with no disagreement. If anybody thinks he's not a socialist, they're probably not at all understanding of what the word means.

Socialism in the U.S.? Well, the Russians are laughing at us for accelerating down that path. They say they've learned better; capitalism is a better system for the common man.

[flopticalcube]

Any nation can have both socialist and capitalist values. It needn't be all or nothing.

[.Andy]

Any nation can have both socialist and capitalist values. It needn't be all or nothing.
Unfortunatey for superficial culture wars politics such a position is far too sophisticated. It's all or nothing.

[Zombie Acorn]

Yeah, well my sister just got back from Iowa and she said that all Iowans defecate in outhouses and use corncobs to clean up...

Heresay is meaningless.


France has done an admirable job in maintaining a certain quality of life. Actuarial tables however, rarely lie. France faces the same problem that all western countries do. A low birthrate means fewer workers in the future and the French are not immune from that. So far Sarkozy seems to be pushing through reform fairly well.

As has been illustrated in various posts, they have a maximum 35 hour work week which is unheard of in the US, work significantly less hours, and get paid to nap at work. I wasn't saying anything particularly negative.

[flopticalcube]

Ah yes... Sweden a Super Model for the United States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDAQWJbEl9U) to emulate.
I'm sure their relative success is definitely due to the socialized elements of their economy. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDAQWJbEl9U
If you measure success by health outcomes, levels of crime and general well-being, then its been a resounding success in Sweden and many other countries. If you measure success in monetary terms then no, because it extracts a monetary cost. This is the trade many nations have taken. Will it work in the US? Don't know, don't really care. That is something for Americans to decide. I personally don't think you will know either until you have tried some measures. Some socialized measures at work in the US seem to be working out: police, fire, military.

[Desertrat]

"Any nation can have both socialist and capitalist values. It needn't be all or nothing."

Very true, flopticalcube. But there are limits, and our government in the US has exceeded its ability to pay for the socialist part of it. With no signs of a change in direction, we're headed into the same fiscal death trap as the PIIGS and England.

When we were rich, we could afford to have socialist programs. Now? No longer the case.

[Eraserhead]

With no signs of a change in direction, we're headed into the same fiscal death trap as the PIIGS and England.

We aren't in a fiscal death trap, the government are on track to reduce the deficit to zero.

[.Andy]

We aren't in a fiscal death trap, the government are on track to reduce the deficit to zero.
You are of course overlooking the far left US socialist banking system that caused the economy to collapse in the first place eraserhead....

[mcrain]

"Any nation can have both socialist and capitalist values. It needn't be all or nothing."

Very true, flopticalcube. But there are limits, and our government in the US has exceeded its ability to pay for the socialist part of it. With no signs of a change in direction, we're headed into the same fiscal death trap as the PIIGS and England.

When we were rich, we could afford to have socialist programs. Now? No longer the case.

Socialist programs are bankrupting this country? Why is it that we had those same socialist programs prior to Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr, but the budget wasn't massively in the red. Oh I see, you must actually mean that we can't afford the "socialist programs" that Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. instituted (tax cuts, military spending, and invasions of foreign lands).

You are of course overlooking the far left US socialist banking system that caused the economy to collapse in the first place eraserhead.... Yes, and the far left socialist tax cuts, military spending, and wars.

[Zombie Acorn]

You are of course overlooking the far left US socialist banking system that caused the economy to collapse in the first place eraserhead....

Don't integrate your economy with ours if you don't want the effects of a downturn. You can't have your cake, eat it, and bitch about the frosting too.

[Queso]

Don't integrate your economy with ours if you don't want the effects of a downturn. You can't have your cake, eat it, and bitch about the frosting too.
Are you suggesting that globalisation has been forced on the good ol' US of A by all the Commie countries outside of your borders, all desperate to suck on your ever-flowing teat of Capitalist goodness?

The USA has led the integration charge, not the other way round.

[Zombie Acorn]

Are you suggesting that globalisation has been forced on the good ol' US of A by all the Commie countries outside of your borders, all desperate to suck on your ever-flowing teat of Capitalist goodness?

The USA has led the integration charge, not the other way round.

Every sovereign country has a choice to integrate their economy into the global system. I did not say the USA was forced into globalization, quite the opposite, what I am saying is that each country has a choice, and they shouldn't bitch about a downturn in our financial sector anymore than we should bitch about BP greasing our shores for us.

Australia can make their own clothes, cars, software, and grill kangaroo for all I care.

[Queso]

Every sovereign country has a choice to integrate their economy into the global system. I did not say the USA was forced into globalization, quite the opposite, what I am saying is that each country has a choice, and they shouldn't bitch about a downturn in our financial sector anymore than we should bitch about BP greasing our shores for us.
Knowingly packaging bad debt and selling it on as good is fraud, plain and simple. US bankers should be standing trial, as should anyone in other parts of the world that sold on bad US debt once they realised just how toxic it was.
Australia can make their own clothes, cars, software, and grill kangaroo for all I care.
Australia never went into recession and is economically stronger than ever thanks to its supply agreements with far eastern nations. Bad example, even if you were aiming it at an Australian.

[Zombie Acorn]

Knowingly packaging bad debt and selling it on as good is fraud, plain and simple. US bankers should be standing trial, as should anyone in other parts of the world that sold on bad US debt once they realised just how toxic it was.

I agree with this, but its inevitable in such a big economic system that there are going to be a few bad apples. If you look at how much good globalization has done this is small cookies.

Australia never went into recession and is economically stronger than ever thanks to its supply agreements with far eastern nations. Bad example, even if you were aiming it at an Australian.

It was my impression that .Andy was bitching about our financial sector impacting Australia.

[opinioncircle]

As has been illustrated in various posts, they have a maximum 35 hour work week which is unheard of in the US, work significantly less hours, and get paid to nap at work. I wasn't saying anything particularly negative.

Well sure, especially since France has one of the highest outputs in Europe...

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_of_europe.shtml#real_productivity

Where are you getting this, because it's not covered in any article I've seen so far.

I am getting this because I live in France, and all my sources are in French.

[opinioncircle]

Don't integrate your economy with ours if you don't want the effects of a downturn. You can't have your cake, eat it, and bitch about the frosting too.

In other words, exactly what the US is doing with China and the Euro: talking about keeping the US$ down and unfair trade...Or so I am told...

[CorvusCamenarum]

I am getting this because I live in France, and all my sources are in French.

Unless you have a link, a French anecdote is still an anecdote. I can read French fairly well, but I'll be sure to ask you if I encounter any big words.

[Zombie Acorn]

Well sure, especially since France has one of the highest outputs in Europe...

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_of_europe.shtml#real_productivity

Thats not really saying much.

[Desertrat]

"Ah, youth. 'Tis a pity it's wasted on the young."

mcrain, you didn't pay attention:

"When we were rich, we could afford to have socialist programs. Now? No longer the case."

At the end of WW II, we were the King Kong of the industrialized world. We had the incredible amount of savings which were accumulated during WW II, and the whole world was our customer. We got rich.

That powerhouse built up all the way into the 1970s and then the growing industrialization of the rest of the world began catching up. Now, it's ahead and we're falling behind.

The last thirty years have seen us spending our capital, rather than limiting ourselves to spending just the interest on that capital. That's both the private and public sectors.

If we could afford the various socialistic programs we have, we wouldn't be running the incredible deficits and increasing our national debt in the manner now occurring.

It seems to be generally accepted, even among the Keynesians, that deficits greater than three percent of GDP indicate problems. Same for when the national debt exceeds some 20% of GDP. Yes, we had those problems in the post-WW II era, but we no longer have savings, we no longer are the King Kong of industrialized nations. We're in the deep doo-doo of debt. Around 11% deficit against GDP, and close to 100% debt against GDP. Not much better than the PIIGS or England.

This present policy of Quantitative Easing is like taking aspirin against the pain of a brain tumor. There is the pain-relieving palliative effect of putting some money in people's pockets, but it does not cure the disease of excessive debt. Rather, it merely adds to the problem.

Enuf fer now...

[Eraserhead]

Not much better than the PIIGS or England.

In which fantasy reality is the UK doing worse than the US?

You are of course overlooking the far left US socialist banking system that caused the economy to collapse in the first place eraserhead....

To be fair some of it is our fault.

[Queso]

US national debt currently stands at 88.9% of GDP compared to the UK at 62.2%.

[Desertrat]

Eraserhead, one of the analytical articles I've recently read about deficits and debts showed England's deficit at 12.6% of GDP. That was a week or three back...

[Peterkro]

Eraserhead, one of the analytical articles I've recently read about deficits and debts showed England's deficit at 12.6% of GDP. That was a week or three back...

Britain or the U.K. is not just England.

[Eraserhead]

Eraserhead, one of the analytical articles I've recently read about deficits and debts showed England's deficit at 12.6% of GDP. That was a week or three back...

Yeah, but our total debt is lower and we have an actual plan to reduce spending and raise taxes in place. The Economist is quite rightly criticising us this week for ring-fencing healthcare (http://www.economist.com/node/16425894?story_id=16425894) but the US refuses to discuss either raising taxes or cutting spending in a serious manner.

[SactoGuy18]

I suggest that anyone who thinks socialism is a good idea should read Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. When you're finished, you wonder why many experts estimate somewhere between 70 to 100 MILLION Chinese died between 1949 and 1976 from the labor camps, mass shootings and misguided policies of Mao Zedeng--and many have said Mao was not a pleasant person to deal with.

As one who saw the effects of socialism gone amok in China during the height of the Cultural Revolution from nearby Hong Kong as a small child (I remember vividly Communist sympathizers placing homemade bombs in the streets of Hong Kong in 1967, not to mention talking with escapees from China), that's why I have lots of misgiving's about President Obama's policies, which (in my humble opinion) is taking the USA in the most socialist direction since the 1930's.

[.Andy]

I suggest that anyone who thinks socialism is a good idea should read Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. When you're finished, you wonder why many experts estimate somewhere between 70 to 100 MILLION Chinese died between 1949 and 1976 from the labor camps, mass shootings and misguided policies of Mao Zedeng--and many have said Mao was not a pleasant person to deal with.

As one who saw the effects of socialism gone amok in China during the height of the Cultural Revolution from nearby Hong Kong as a small child (I remember vividly Communist sympathizers placing homemade bombs in the streets of Hong Kong in 1967, not to mention talking with escapees from China), that's why I have lots of misgiving's about President Obama's policies, which (in my humble opinion) is taking the USA in the most socialist direction since the 1930's.
You have to be kidding. There is absolutely no comparison at all.

[Peterkro]

I suggest that anyone who thinks socialism is a good idea should read Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. When you're finished, you wonder why many experts estimate somewhere between 70 to 100 MILLION Chinese died between 1949 and 1976 from the labor camps, mass shootings and misguided policies of Mao Zedeng--and many have said Mao was not a pleasant person to deal with.

As one who saw the effects of socialism gone amok in China during the height of the Cultural Revolution from nearby Hong Kong as a small child (I remember vividly Communist sympathizers placing homemade bombs in the streets of Hong Kong in 1967, not to mention talking with escapees from China), that's why I have lots of misgiving's about President Obama's policies, which (in my humble opinion) is taking the USA in the most socialist direction since the 1930's.

Of course the regimes which controlled China before the "Communists" were beacons of humanitarian generosity.

[Eraserhead]

You have to be kidding. There is absolutely no comparison at all.

I think pretty much everyone in the world accepts that Mao's policies left much to be desired.

And a large proportion of the deaths were the result of the Great Leap Forward - which is almost universally criticised as being appalling.

[Desertrat]

Eraserhead, I've read what is said about "The Plan" for England. The question is whether or not it can be implemented. There is doubt.

As for the US? We've been doing stoopid on monetary policy for a long time. The stoopid has been even worse, these last three years, and is accelerating. (The difference between stupid and stoopid is akin to the difference between ugly and coyote-ugly.)

As far as raising taxes? The more that's done, the less money there is for investment in business--which means a slower economy, more unemployment, and higher deficits. We're already in deep doo-doo for investment capital; why make it worse?

Peterkro, does the fact that Chiang's government was bad news for the poor folks justify the horrors of Mao? Or that the plight of the poor in Russia somehow justified Stalin's actions in the Ukraine?

Socialism succeeds from the successful selling of the Big Lie. People who fall for the politics of envy and go that route wind up in the political equivalent of the La Brea tar pits: Trapped and no way out until there is a return to capitalism, as China has obviously done. Once again, the Chinese are deserving of their ancient appellation for their business acumen, "The Jews of the Orient".

[fivepoint]

Peterkro, does the fact that Chiang's government was bad news for the poor folks justify the horrors of Mao? Or that the plight of the poor in Russia somehow justified Stalin's actions in the Ukraine?

Socialism succeeds from the successful selling of the Big Lie. People who fall for the politics of envy and go that route wind up in the political equivalent of the La Brea tar pits: Trapped and no way out until there is a return to capitalism.

+1

[Peterkro]

Peterkro, does the fact that Chiang's government was bad news for the poor folks justify the horrors of Mao? Or that the plight of the poor in Russia somehow justified Stalin's actions in the Ukraine?

Socialism succeeds from the successful selling of the Big Lie. People who fall for the politics of envy and go that route wind up in the political equivalent of the La Brea tar pits: Trapped and no way out until there is a return to capitalism, as China has obviously done. Once again, the Chinese are deserving of their ancient appellation for their business acumen, "The Jews of the Orient".

No of course not,however criticising the the regimes in China and the Soviet Union while not mentioning the previous regimes in these areas nor the much worse problems caused by capitalism is one eyed to say the least.You talk of the "big lie" and the "politics of envy" now aside from the sub Fox right wing blogs who repeat these terms ad nauseam blindly, what is the point of them,what for instance do they mean if anything,please enlighten me.
I might also remind you that state capitalism as practised in the USSR and China is in no way connected to socialism,misleading names are a common wheeze used by political parties, for instance the DDR or the democratic party in the U.S. are anything but democratic the list is almost endless.

[CaptMurdock]

Ah, yes, Teh Evils of Socialism. It's a good thing that the United States, Shining Beacon of Capitalism, has never done anything that would lead to the extermination of large masses of people...

Why don't you contact a descendant of Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole tribes about the Trail of Tears? Or the Nez Pierce? The Sioux? I'm sure they'd love to tell you how God-given Capitalism has benefited them.

Get real. Capitalism's hands aren't any cleaner than Socialism. That's because neither one of them kill people. People kill people. Read the memo.

[Macky-Mac]

Ah, yes, Teh Evils of Socialism. It's a good thing that the United States, Shining Beacon of Capitalism, has never done anything that would lead to the extermination of large masses of people...

Why don't you contact a descendant of Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole tribes about the Trail of Tears? Or the Nez Pierce? The Sioux? I'm sure they'd love to tell you how God-given Capitalism has benefited them.

Get real. Capitalism's hands aren't any cleaner than Socialism. That's because neither one of them kill people. People kill people. Read the memo.

true, but also meaningless

[Eraserhead]

Eraserhead, I've read what is said about "The Plan" for England. The question is whether or not it can be implemented. There is doubt.

What's this doubt?

As far as raising taxes? The more that's done, the less money there is for investment in business--which means a slower economy, more unemployment, and higher deficits.

That isn't really fair by any means. To combat high levels of debt you have to cut services and raise taxes.

Peterkro, does the fact that Chiang's government was bad news for the poor folks justify the horrors of Mao?

Noone here has tried to justify Mao.

I suggest that anyone who thinks socialism is a good idea should read Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. When you're finished, you wonder why many experts estimate somewhere between 70 to 100 MILLION Chinese died between 1949 and 1976 from the labor camps, mass shootings and misguided policies of Mao Zedeng

How do these numbers add up? According to Wiki the Great Leap forward killed 20 million and the Cultural Revolution killed about 1 million. Even if you double those figures you're still left with a gap of 25 - 50 million between those figures and those given in this book.

[CaptMurdock]

true, but also meaningless

Don't tell me...tell Desertrat and the Socialism Kills crowd.

[Macky-Mac]

Don't tell me...tell Desertrat and the Socialism Kills crowd.

it seems that you and others should use the term "State Capitalism" instead of referring to all those failed socialist revolutions as "socialist"......it appears that all those self-proclaimed socialists didn't realized they weren't really socialist revolutionaries

[Desertrat]

Hey, I'm older than any of the Fox News crowd. I've held my views a lot longer. Maybe they've been reading my mail? Gigglesnort. It's nice to see young folks learn from history. :D:D:D

Peterkro: "No of course not,however criticising the the regimes in China and the Soviet Union while not mentioning the previous regimes in these areas nor the much worse problems caused by capitalism..."

One thing I learned duriing WW II: Refugees always go away from the Bad Guys and toward the Good Guys. Regardless of the evils of previous regimes, the outflow of refugees from Red China and the USSR increased insofar as it were physically possible. I've always figured that a refugee had more credibility as to knowledge about Good/Bad than any armchair theorist.

"...the much worse problems caused by capitalism"? Worse than the tens of millions of dead from Mao and Stalin? How?

Last I heard, even those who find serious problems with capitalism grant that it has provided the greatest per-capita amounts of goods and services in the history of the world.

Note that prior to the 1917 revolution, Russia was a food-exporting country. That changed, for sure.

[Black Macbook]

I've always figured that a refugee had more credibility as to knowledge about Good/Bad than any armchair theorist.


I also find another good indicator for determining who is good and bad is to look at the walls that people build and then determine if the main purpose of these walls are to keep people from entering or from leaving.

The Russian commies had that wall built in East Germany to keep the residents from leaving! If their system was so great, why did they have to force people to stay and kill those who tried?

The USA has some walls on it's border, and it's certainly not to stop Americans from leaving, it's to prevent bad people from entering.

Israel has it's walls/fences in certain areas, and again, it's not to keep Israeli citizens from leaving, it's to prevent bad people from entering.

Look at North Korea, another wonderful socialist-totalitarian-stalinist country, which is so great that it is basically hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world with it's population starving.

Socialists are bad people, who have brought very little good to this world, and that is my view.

[Eraserhead]

One thing I learned duriing WW II: Refugees always go away from the Bad Guys and toward the Good Guys. Regardless of the evils of previous regimes, the outflow of refugees from Red China and the USSR increased insofar as it were physically possible. I've always figured that a refugee had more credibility as to knowledge about Good/Bad than any armchair theorist.

I believe large numbers of refugees left the US when it became independent, when the French revolution happened and when Vietnam re-united. I think its more to them being on the "wrong side" beforehand than the new regime being worse than the old one.

"...the much worse problems caused by capitalism"? Worse than the tens of millions of dead from Mao and Stalin? How?

Last I heard, even those who find serious problems with capitalism grant that it has provided the greatest per-capita amounts of goods and services in the history of the world.

That's true, but the countries who have lifted large numbers out of poverty like India and Indonesia aren't exactly red-blooded capitalists. They've got a lot of socialist controls in place such as minimum wages etc.

Look at North Korea, another wonderful socialist-totalitarian-stalinist country, which is so great that it is basically hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world with it's population starving.

Socialists are bad people, who have brought very little good to this world, and that is my view.

I don't think you understand what a socialist is. North Korea isn't socialist.

[CaptMurdock]

I also find another good indicator for determining who is good and bad is to look at the walls that people build and then determine if the main purpose of these walls are to keep people from entering or from leaving.

The Russian commies had that wall built in East Germany to keep the residents from leaving! If their system was so great, why did they have to force people to stay and kill those who tried?

The USA has some walls on it's border, and it's certainly not to stop Americans from leaving, it's to prevent bad people from entering.

Israel has it's walls/fences in certain areas, and again, it's not to keep Israeli citizens from leaving, it's to prevent bad people from entering.

Look at North Korea, another wonderful socialist-totalitarian-stalinist country, which is so great that it is basically hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world with it's population starving.

Socialists are bad people, who have brought very little good to this world, and that is my view.

I think the phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" sums up the flaw in this argument.

[Black Macbook]

I don't think you understand what a socialist is. North Korea isn't socialist.

We can argue semantics all day long about who exactly is a socialist or not and the various definitions of that word, but the fact remains that many of the worst regimes on this planet have called themselves socialists or consider themselves to be socialists.

Officially a socialist republic,[19] many media organizations outside North Korea report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship.[14][15][20][21][22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

And Hitler belonged to the National Socialist party. You can argue that he wasn't really a socialist or whatever, but that's what they called themselves.

Chavez is another socialist and third world dictator who babbles on about some deranged socialist revolution.

[Eraserhead]

North Korea also claims to be a democracy... Its the democratic people's republic of Korea after all.

[Peterkro]

"...the much worse problems caused by capitalism"? Worse than the tens of millions of dead from Mao and Stalin? How?



Just one example, the twenty million people kidnapped from Africa for the slave trade ten million of whom never reached their destination or the eighty million wiped out in the Americas.

[flopticalcube]

We can argue semantics all day long about who exactly is a socialist or not and the various definitions of that word, but the fact remains that many of the worst regimes on this planet have called themselves socialists or consider themselves to be socialists.

Officially a socialist republic,[19] many media organizations outside North Korea report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship.[14][15][20][21][22]

Since they are officially a Republic as well, maybe we should be wary of any organization that has the word Republic or derivatives thereof in its name?

[bobber205]

We can argue semantics all day long about who exactly is a socialist or not and the various definitions of that word, but the fact remains that many of the worst regimes on this planet have called themselves socialists or consider themselves to be socialists.

Officially a socialist republic,[19] many media organizations outside North Korea report that it is a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship.[14][15][20][21][22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

And Hitler belonged to the National Socialist party. You can argue that he wasn't really a socialist or whatever, but that's what they called themselves.

Chavez is another socialist and third world dictator who babbles on about some deranged socialist revolution.

:p
http://files.sharenator.com/2043_fail_camera_Fail-s500x420-10287-580.jpg

[Black Macbook]

I already know that socialists are bad. It is you people who should convince me that they're good, preferably with proof to back up any assertions, especially if they're of a suspicious or ridiculous nature.

Here's from the homepage of the Socialist Party USA.

We support militant working class struggles and electoral action

http://socialistparty-usa.org/

And why do almost all socialists love the color commie-red? My guess is that red is the same color as blood, and socialists don't mind spilling a little.

[flopticalcube]

And why do almost all socialists love the color commie-red? My guess is that red is the same color as blood, and socialists don't mind spilling a little.
Neither do you, from what I have read.

[Black Macbook]

Neither do you, from what I have read.

My killing is a good kind of killing. There's nothing bad or wrong about killing enemies in a war situation, it's perfectly normal and understandable. And there's no reason to apologize for or to be humble about that view. My kind of killing consists of wanting enemies in foreign countries dead. I support the US troops, not the enemy. The more enemies that die, the better.

The Socialists dream about violent revolution and replacing the government with their own demented cuckoo version. Socialists are anti-American and they're no friends of mine.

And also, I don't wear or own any red shirts.

[Macky-Mac]

My killing is a good kind of killing......

I suppose they all would say that........it's like you and the socialists (er, state capitalists these days) believe exactly the same :eek:

[bobber205]

My killing is a good kind of killing. There's nothing bad or wrong about killing enemies in a war situation, it's perfectly normal and understandable. And there's no reason to apologize for or to be humble about that view. My kind of killing consists of wanting enemies in foreign countries dead. I support the US troops, not the enemy. The more enemies that die, the better.

The Socialists dream about violent revolution and replacing the government with their own demented cuckoo version. Socialists are anti-American and they're no friends of mine.

And also, I don't wear or own any red shirts.

RED SHIRTS ARE EVIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLL.

:p

[Desertrat]

Eraserhead, the successes of Indonesia and India have come from capitalistic endeavors. Those endeavors do not exclude socialistic or authoritarian regimes. And those societies lacked monetary success until they reduced controls over business and industry, allowing capitalistic efforts much freer rein.

As far as slavery, far more were taken to the Caribbean and South America than to the U.S. A ratio of over ten to one, per one article I read some years back. Might have been a good bit higher than ten, but that's good enough for memory. I was startled by the numbers, is why it sorta stuck with me...

All in all, dragging up past horrors of "man's inhumanity to man" back beyond modern times is silly. Next thing you know we'd be hootin' and hollerin' over Genghis Khan's mountains of skulls, and cussin' Mongols. Pointless.

Still, the bottom line of a society with an excess of socialism is that it goes broke. Can't pay its bills except via inflation of the currency. Like the U.S., right now. Run the numbers on the entitlements, and aside from already being broke, we're going broker. If China and Japan quit buying our debt we'll truly be up that proverbial creek, sans paddle. We will indeed have run out of other people's money--which is all that's keeping us going, right now. Ms. Maggie was correct, as the western nations are learning.

[Beric]

Wow. Amazing to find that on a website discussing products from a capitalist company in a capitalist country, socialism has so much support.

Let's put it this way: capitalism has improved living standards across the globe. It has never claimed to increase everyone's living standards equally, but they have improved for everyone. And the only reason countries can even consider socialism today is due to the money and living standards made off capitalism.

[citizenzen]

Wow. Amazing to find that on a website discussing products from a capitalist company in a capitalist country, socialism has so much support.

What's amazing to me is that you seem to think that capitalism and socialism are somehow mutually exclusive.

Modern socialism left Marx behind long ago. Isn't it time that you did too?

[Zombie Acorn]

What's amazing to me is that you seem to think that capitalism and socialism are somehow mutually exclusive.

Modern socialism left Marx behind long ago. Isn't it time that you did too?

capocialism is ideal.

[Beric]

What's amazing to me is that you seem to think that capitalism and socialism are somehow mutually exclusive.

Modern socialism left Marx behind long ago. Isn't it time that you did too?

So are you really supporting socialism, or more of a mixed economy?

There are no laissez-faire capitalist societies, nor have there been. But "communism" in Russia was different than Marx's definition as well.

[Eraserhead]

As far as slavery, far more were taken to the Caribbean and South America than to the U.S. A ratio of over ten to one, per one article I read some years back. Might have been a good bit higher than ten, but that's good enough for memory. I was startled by the numbers, is why it sorta stuck with me...

Yep, and who took them there? The British? French before the revolution? Spanish? These aren't well known socialist nations.

Still, the bottom line of a society with an excess of socialism ... If China and Japan quit buying our debt we'll truly be up that proverbial creek, sans paddle.

Bit of a contradiction in terms there.

Eraserhead, the successes of Indonesia and India have come from capitalistic endeavors. Those endeavors do not exclude socialistic or authoritarian regimes. And those societies lacked monetary success until they reduced controls over business and industry, allowing capitalistic efforts much freer rein.

Its true that they freed up their economies, but they aren't anywhere near as free as we are and they have done a lot of government intervention to fight poverty - which is socialist.

[Peterkro]

Eraserhead, the successes of Indonesia and India have come from capitalistic endeavors. Those endeavors do not exclude socialistic or authoritarian regimes. And those societies lacked monetary success until they reduced controls over business and industry, allowing capitalistic efforts much freer rein.

Indonesia, in Timor at least 100,000 excess deaths.
India,Amartya Sen did a study which measured excess deaths in India over those in China because of "relatively equitable distribution of healthcare resources" in China and got a figure of four million per year,now using the methodology of the Black book of Communism(which is where the figures you are bandying about come from whether you realise it or not) I would multiply that figure by the number of years the modern Indian state has been in existence,the resulting number of excess deaths would be two hundred and forty million,quite a large number don't you think?


As far as slavery, far more were taken to the Caribbean and South America than to the U.S. A ratio of over ten to one, per one article I read some years back. Might have been a good bit higher than ten, but that's good enough for memory. I was startled by the numbers, is why it sorta stuck with me...

What does the country of destination have to do with what we are discussing,the reason I used this example is it's the archetypical capitalist crime turning humans into pure capital.

All in all, dragging up past horrors of "man's inhumanity to man" back beyond modern times is silly. Next thing you know we'd be hootin' and hollerin' over Genghis Khan's mountains of skulls, and cussin' Mongols. Pointless.
You seem to have a odd idea of "modern times" it doesn't refer to just "in your lifetime".
Still, the bottom line of a society with an excess of socialism is that it goes broke. Can't pay its bills except via inflation of the currency. Like the U.S., right now. Run the numbers on the entitlements, and aside from already being broke, we're going broker. If China and Japan quit buying our debt we'll truly be up that proverbial creek, sans paddle. We will indeed have run out of other people's money--which is all that's keeping us going, right now. Ms. Maggie was correct, as the western nations are learning.

I'm glad at least you can see the irony of "socialism going broke" given what is happening to your much vaunted "capitalist system". If you want to criticise the faults and crimes of the USSR or China by all means go ahead (people of my political views have reason to hate authoritarian regimes,of whichever of the 57 varieties they come in,more than most) but to do so without looking at the crimes of capitalism is frankly to use one of your folksy sayings "dumber than dirt".

The figures I would accept say one hundred to one hundred and fifty million deaths attributable directly to capitalism in the twentieth century alone,this doesn't include excess deaths caused by inequalities build into capitalism.You might well benefit from reading up on "structural violence" you may then understand just how many people die in honour of your great god,capitalism.

[Eraserhead]

The figures I would accept say one hundred to one hundred and fifty million deaths attributable directly to capitalism in the twentieth century alone,this doesn't include excess deaths caused by inequalities build into capitalism.You might well benefit from reading up on "structural violence" you may then understand just how many people die in honour of your great god,capitalism.

But then again countries such as India and Indonesia have lifted huge numbers of people out of abject poverty by embracing free markets to an extent.

I think some form of socialistic-capitalism with strong rule of law is probably the best approach.

[Peterkro]

My killing is a good kind of killing. There's nothing bad or wrong about killing enemies in a war situation, it's perfectly normal and understandable. And there's no reason to apologize for or to be humble about that view. My kind of killing consists of wanting enemies in foreign countries dead. I support the US troops, not the enemy. The more enemies that die, the better.

The Socialists dream about violent revolution and replacing the government with their own demented cuckoo version. Socialists are anti-American and they're no friends of mine.

And also, I don't wear or own any red shirts.

Jesus wept,what is going on with the U.S. education system?

Yep, and who took them there? The British? French before the revolution? Spanish? These aren't well known socialist nations.



The Portuguese would be the biggest offenders.

[Peterkro]

But then again countries such as India and Indonesia have lifted huge numbers of people out of abject poverty by embracing free markets to an extent.

I think some form of socialistic-capitalism with strong rule of law is probably the best approach.

There is no such thing as a "free market" (actually there have been but not on a national level),the subject of India alone would entail hundreds of pages of analysis but I would say the biggest factor in some Indians rise from abject poverty was the ending of colonialism (same applies to Indonesia).The irony of the "free marketeers" who are concentrated in the U.S. is that while Britain tried for a freer world trading system in the latter half of the nineteenth century the U.S. build it's economy behind tariff walls, then in the (19)seventies suddenly tried to embrace "free trade",in reality it still doesn't of course.I tend to think the rise in living standards for some in the developing countries has been in spite of not because of capitalism.

[Zombie Acorn]

There is no such thing as a "free market" (actually there have been but not on a national level),the subject of India alone would entail hundreds of pages of analysis but I would say the biggest factor in some Indians rise from abject poverty was the ending of colonialism (same applies to Indonesia).The irony of the "free marketeers" who are concentrated in the U.S. is that while Britain tried for a freer world trading system in the latter half of the nineteenth century the U.S. build it's economy behind tariff walls, then in the (19)seventies suddenly tried to embrace "free trade",in reality it still doesn't of course.I tend to think the rise in living standards for some in the developing countries has been in spite of not because of capitalism.

You can't intermix capitalism and free trade freely, they aren't necessarily the same. We can build our country up with capitalism while not embracing free trade.

[Desertrat]

"The figures I would accept say one hundred to one hundred and fifty million deaths attributable directly to capitalism in the twentieth century alone..."

Oh, wow, Peterkro! I'm so glad to learn that Stalin, Hitler, Mao et al were capitalists! Thank you!

"You seem to have a odd idea of "modern times" it doesn't refer to just "in your lifetime"."

No. Not odd. If you dredge up old wrongs to justify a point, you're saying that because "we" did bad things then, "they" can do bad things now. Or vice versa, depending on which side of the argument you expouse.

[CaptMurdock]

"The figures I would accept say one hundred to one hundred and fifty million deaths attributable directly to capitalism in the twentieth century alone..."

Oh, wow, Peterkro! I'm so glad to learn that Stalin, Hitler, Mao et al were capitalists! Thank you!

"You seem to have a odd idea of "modern times" it doesn't refer to just "in your lifetime"."

No. Not odd. If you dredge up old wrongs to justify a point, you're saying that because "we" did bad things then, "they" can do bad things now. Or vice versa, depending on which side of the argument you expouse.

Uh...you were the one who started off with the "Capitalism Good, Socialism Bad, 'cause Socialism Kills People."

If you can't stand rebuttals, don't make the argument.

[Desertrat]

CaptMurdock, capitalism is not a political thing. It's a goods and services provider. Socialism is a political belief system, and its adherents have proven to be willing to use force to impose in upon the unwilling. It may begin as benign, as it has in the west, generally, but it cannot tolerate resistance.

So for somebody to yawp about government-created deaths in the 20th century as having been due to capitalism is 180 degrees off from the reality.

Captitalism works best when not unduly imposed upon by outside forces on the marketplace, and those who enjoy its benefits resent and resist the imposition of the uber-controls so desired by the socialists. It's a "Leave me alone so I can do my thing!" deal--and those who want power over others just can't stand that. Individual sovereignty, freedom and liberty are not part of the statist lexicon.

Again: Capitalism is nothing more than the investment of time, money, material and effort to create goods and services. An individual farrier can be a capitalist, as can a mechanic or a local banker. A cobbler or an artisan. Don't err by assuming that only large corporations are the capitalists. Size is irrelevant.

[CaptMurdock]

CaptMurdock, capitalism is not a political thing. It's a goods and services provider. Socialism is a political belief system,

BUZZZZ! No kiss from Richard Dawson for you. Capitalism and socialism, by definition, are economic philosophies, not "political belief systems."

To quote The Outlaw Josey Wales, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Peterkro]

CaptMurdock, capitalism is not a political thing.

Capitalism is a politico-economic system,as is Socialism.

It's a goods and services provider.
Could you explain to me how capital produces goods or services.

Socialism is a political belief system, and its adherents have proven to be willing to use force to impose in upon the unwilling. It may begin as benign, as it has in the west, generally, but it cannot tolerate resistance.

As above Socialism is a politico-economic system and indeed some who call themselves (wrongly) Socialists have used force to ensure their ideology prevails.

So for somebody to yawp about government-created deaths in the 20th century as having been due to capitalism is 180 degrees off from the reality.
It was you who started yawping about millions being killed by "communism" when I pointed out the worse crimes perpetrated in the name of "capitalism" you didn't answer except for a short outburst the purpose or meaning of which I have no idea.If you have a reason for the First World War (which of course led to the second) other than a Imperialist/Capitalist squabble over markets and resources I'd love to hear it.(this capitalist war led to the unnecessary death of around fifteen million humans,it of course wasn't the first of the capitalist slaughters of the century,see South Africa or Congo for instance).
Captitalism works best when not unduly imposed upon by outside forces on the marketplace, and those who enjoy its benefits resent and resist the imposition of the uber-controls so desired by the socialists. It's a "Leave me alone so I can do my thing!" deal--and those who want power over others just can't stand that. Individual sovereignty, freedom and liberty are not part of the statist lexicon.
Indeed freedom and liberty are not part of the Statist lexicon which is why exploitation by Capitalists has to take place behind the shield of state violence,by that I mean as long as you have any idea of "property rights" you have negated freedom and instituted slavery,now as people will struggle to achieve liberty from slavery they will take your unearned land or gold or whatever and use it for themselves unless you protect it by using your wealth to hire slaves to guard it,hey presto the state is born.
Again: Capitalism is nothing more than the investment of time, money, material and effort to create goods and services. An individual farrier can be a capitalist, as can a mechanic or a local banker. A cobbler or an artisan. Don't err by assuming that only large corporations are the capitalists. Size is irrelevant.
As above how does capital produce goods or services?

There is a quote from the romantic novelist Ayn Rand which I think explains this quite well:


"man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."