| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1871 Joined: 11 Jun 2008     | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1066 Joined: 26 Jan 2008     | Basically all leftism is derived from European liberalism/socialism/Marxism, though Barack Obama's policies in actuality don't even place him very far to the left - universal healthcare, for example, is in 2008 largely a 'centrist' policy among industrialized nations, and tends to go almost entirely unopposed by conservative parties in both Canada and Europe. I would guess that, to Americans, it's easy to sensationalize Obama's leftism merely because their society is such a right-wing anamoly in the developed world. A good example is Obama's approaches to both taxation and healthcare: firstly, he proposes that taxes only be raised on those who make 250K+ - which is a fairly lenient taxation policy, since U.S. taxes are already low and in Canada, for example, a typical government employee will pay a large chunk of their cheque to the feds - and he intends to implement a two-tier healthcare system, which is thusly a far less 'socialized' model than many of those that already exist all over the world. I'm no communist, but I would urge any Americans voters who habit Republican not to reel in dismay when they hear news that someone's policies vaguely resemble 'socialism' (and inversely, leftists who have no appreciation for the merits of small 'c' conservatism to be more forgiving), since, for all intensive purposes, international surveys have shown time and time again that the nations with the highest living standards on the planet all possess levels of taxation high enough to support their own impovershed, thereby preventing the kinds of ghettoization and social problems that exist in the United States. Moreover, real 'equality' isn't necessarily as simple as having a tiny government and not taxing anyone: if you come from abject poverty, for example, how is the government generating equality by not providing you with more assistance than they would for, say, Samantha's pool party in Forest Hill? Also, as a side note: in purely monetary terms, leftist policies categorically benefit the young since they tend to fall into a lower income bracket. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 609 Joined: 12 Sep 2008    |
Are you suggesting that socialism is a bad thing? I realy don't have time to read the full post, but let's be real here: socialism is a good thing. Even fictional Jesus was a socialist. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 369 Joined: 3 Sep 2008   |
If Jesus was alive today he's be a "Bleeding heart liberal democrat" |
Infamous Scribbler Posts: 609 Joined: 12 Sep 2008 |
i don't know what your getting at because i don't know enoguh about politics, but Jesus clearly was a socialist. THat is the fictional character Jesus who was in the Bible. I'm not even getting into whether a historical jesus existed--i'm just commenting on him from a purely fictional standpoint. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 154 Joined: 13 Sep 2008   | To quote Psmith: "I'm all for practical socialism. You begin by collaring everything you can and sitting on it." Any politician who lets me do that is fine by me. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1871 Joined: 11 Jun 2008 |
Eh, I often joked that Jesus invented the bread line but in all honesty Jesus would not be a socialist. He'd probably be more of a proponent of the kibitz system in all honesty. Christians believe in giving to the masses, not forcefully taking and then giving to the masses. Taxatian itself is considered immoral and is a constant theme revisited in the Bible as a bad thing. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1176 Joined: 26 Jun 2008   | So if you say spreading the wealth around is socialist...then the Red Cross is socialist... |
CEO & Publisher  Posts: 589 Joined: 12 Nov 2002    |
Um... that's almost entirely counter-factual. Economic Freedom of the World, by Milton Friedman, is the most referenced study of economic freedom's correlation to standards of living and growth. That study has shown that economic freedom correlates strongly with higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption. Economic freedom is tracked by 38 variables. Obama's socialist policies would move us lower on the economic freedom index, and thereby correlate with lower average income, lower life expectancy, etc etc.
From what basis do you conclude that the role of government is to "generate equality"? That's a gigantic normative, ethical claim which a huge portion of Americans, and our Founding Fathers, would probably disagree with.
False. Leftist policies reduce economic growth. The young are the biggest beneficiaries of economic growth, as the growth compounds throughout their lifetime. Moreoever, socialist policies of the more moderate sort you are proposing almost always involve a redistribution from the working (young) to the non-working (elderly). They also serve to put a damper on your income through higher taxation, which in turn prevents you from savings and capital accumulation that would enable you to gain social mobility. Also, everyone here who keeps citing the European model really needs to review simple demographics. Demographics is destiny. Demographics says the European model is BROKEN. They can't sustain their welfare state; welfare economics reduced the birth rate, and with fewer children, there aren't enough workers to pay for it, and the population is aging so fast, the whole system will simly collapse. It's game over in a generation. Let's not inflict that on America. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 135 Joined: 21 Aug 2008   |
Bad analogy. When the red cross breaks down your door and forcefully takes money out of your wallet every year, then you will have an apt one. There is nothing wrong with people volunteering their money to organizations or causes, or even STARTING either for issues that bother them. The issue comes up when these things are forced on you. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 67 Joined: 27 Apr 2008  | Just a point to make - Britian has a national health service, we moan about ti of course - but god help us if we didn't have it. Another point, our Labour government is supposedly socialist - and dispite its many mistakes I'm still in my house, not a gulag. And I'd like to ask my American counterpart - why do you think the extra tax from your money, spent on free health care (actual health care, like free operations such as cardiac surgery), is a bad thing? And I'm sorry Archon - but I have to disagree, the European economic model works very well, thank you very much, and is a darn sight more whole than your S***y DOW index. Sub Prime Loans anyone? Thought so. |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 701 Joined: 25 Oct 2008  |
Okay Mr economist. Explain why US is worse ranked on all of these values than wellfare countries. Also add practically no immunizations and more spending per capita on health care than such countries :) |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 123 Joined: 14 Aug 2008  | I believe that private citizens are the best suited to redistribute their own wealth as they see fit. I have an alarming sense of dread when I consider the ways to which the government can screw this up, just look at the state of our public school system and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1871 Joined: 11 Jun 2008 |
Only the Red Cross is a private organization funded by private donations. so yeah, it's actually nothing like socialism. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1176 Joined: 26 Jun 2008 |
Yeah I didn't think of the fact that it was forced. /sorry |
CEO & Publisher Posts: 589 Joined: 12 Nov 2002 |
Actually, the market would help you, not God. I thought you commies were godless anyway? ;)
As for why I'm against socialized health care, there are many reasons, but here is the most basic. When something is socialized, it means that responsibility for it is shared among everyone. That means responsibility for my health is shared among everyone. But health is the outcome, in large part, of personal decisions made throughout your life: Whether to smoke, to exercise, to diet, to take vitamins, etc. So how is responsibility for my personal choices to be shared? Socialized health care leaves us with only two choices. Either the government ignores the role of personal choice in health, or it takes it into account. If it ignores the role of personal choice in health, then the government is asking the prudent, who have chosen to live well, to subsidize those who CHOOSE to damage themselves. The modest pay for the gluttonous. How is that right? If it accepts the role of personal choice in health, then the government must start putting a price tag on choice. That puts the government in the role of pricing and regulating human behavior on a very broad scope. How is that good? No, both of these outcomes are perverse. The former incentivizes people to ignore their own health and punishes the prudent; the latter creates an enormous invasion into freedom of action. Neither is acceptable to me. If someone were to offer as an alternative that a portion of citizen's tax dollars would go into a shared insurance pool against catastrophic, random illness, to protect those who through no fault of their own, suffer grevious harm or sickness, then that is far more supportable. That is truly a safety net that protects those who are put at risk blamelessly, without taking away freedom of choice, or subsiziding bad behavior. But to date, that is not what health care "reformers" have sought. What they have sought is the actual socialization of medicine: Price controls, wage controls, government subsidies, etc. And that, I will fight, because I'm fighting for personal freedom.
Whether or not it works well now, it will not be working very well in the future. This isn't something I'm making up. Leading economists and politicians throughout Europe are saying it, too. Check out Brussels Journal for a great summary of the discussion from a European viewpoint. Sadly, telling me that the DOW is s***ty doesn't change your continent's demographics, sir, or the realities of economic growth. For what it's worth, Europe is facing just as bad a market crisis as America. Iceland has already gone bankrupt. If Europe were fine and America were not, do you think the central bankers and world leaders would be eagerly sitting down with President Bush and Secretary Paulson to figure out a solution? No, they'd ignore him as a lame-duck. The reality is that Europe is in big, big trouble. |
On the Record  Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007   |
That's because Europe does not have massive internal minorities in poverty like the U.S. does. Whether we're talking about Europe or the U.S., the fact is, educated, well-off people just don't have very many kids because they start families later in life. Think of the few internal, native minorities in the Europe: Northern Irish Catholics and Southern Italians. In both cases poverty is correlated with higher birth rates compared to less impoverished populations in the same country. Now think of somewhere like Japan--certainly a country that is pro-business. While there were welfare reforms in the 1990s, the "1.57 Shock" came in 1989--social welfare reforms like the Angel Plan were a reaction to, not the cause of, demographic slides. It's Japan with its "higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption" that is facing the most apocalyptic demographic scenario, not the European welfare states. The fact is, the reason America is not facing the kind of demographic crunch that Europe is has nothing to do with welfare: it has to do with our massive internal minorities--and impoverished whites--as well as the massive immigration--legal and illegal--that we get from Mexico. The problem Europe has is that it can't assimilate and acculturate it's immigration the way the U.S. can--both white German Lutherans and white American Catholics are hiring immigrants, the difference being that there's a lot more cultural distance between a German Lutheran and a Islamic Turk than between an American Catholic and a Mexican Catholic. I mean, how did we get from Reagan saying welfare *promotes* higher birth rates--"welfare queens"--to blaming lower birth rates on welfare? Look around the office of a great company like The Escapist and see how many kids there are per adult. Then go into a church serving America's minorities or the family tree of white Americans in poverty and on welfare and see how many kids you count. It's just a fact of the modern world that, unless you're so poor to be homeless, the better off economically a population is, the less children that population is having. That is why Japan looks worse than Europe which looks worse than America from a demographic point of view: it's not welfare, it's prosperity that drives down birth rates. |
CEO & Publisher Posts: 589 Joined: 12 Nov 2002 |
I'm not an economist. I went to law school, which is a sorry substitute for a real degree. In any event, the US is ranked 8th on the Economic Freedom Rankings, ahead of every country in Europe except our mother country, Great Britain. And the United States is ranked 6th for Per Capita Income, ahead of every country in Europe except Norway. ALL of the countries ahead of us all have populations smaller than New York City, and three of them show high PCI because of oil revenue. Coincidentally those countries show low Economic Freedom, suggesting they got up there just because of oil. This isn't to say the US is perfect. It's a bloody mess with a good likelihood of losing its seat as hyperpower. It's just that the mess isn't the fault of laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism is one of our virtues. :-) |
On the Record Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Do you do that now, though? If you have insurance, what does your insurance pool look like? Does the insurance pool you're in now make sure no one smokes, and everyone looks after their exercise, diet, and taking vitamins? Just because something is not socialized, that does not mean responsibility won't be shared equally. When it comes to health insurance, it will just be shared with members of a self-elected/insurance company screened pool. If anything, it's private health insurance that has taken away your personal freedom: the health care system is built around insurance, not around rugged individualists who pay their own way. |
On the Record Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
But Per Capita Income is no clue as to how well the people of a country is doing, it just tells you how much income that country is taking in. Two countries could have a total income of $101 and 100 people. One country could have 100 people with an income of a dollar, and one person with an income of two dollars. The other country could have 1 person with an income of $100, and 100 people with an income of One Cent. (if I did the math right) Which is the situation in America, where you've got someone making $46 million paying less of a percentage in taxes than his receptionist. PCI is the mean; isn't quality of life in a country, though, more about the median and mode? |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1175 Joined: 13 Nov 2007    | Because we all know, anyone who doesn't support Anarcho-Capitalism is socialist and out to destroy America. |
On the Record Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
I'm not sure what the President could have done as far as the OCC, but government certainly could have done something that might have nipped he sub-prime debacle in the bud: How the feds stopped the states from averting the lending mess. |
CEO & Publisher Posts: 589 Joined: 12 Nov 2002 |
I'm afraid I'm not following your argument, so I can't respond. I'm certainly not advocating that the *current* US health care system, which is a terrible morass of subsidies, regulation, socialization, and other "mixed economy" claptrap, is deal. But I'm arguing against proposals to socialize medicine further. |
On the Record Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
My point is that whether it's government keeping employers from discriminating against smokers in hiring, therefore forcing insurance companies to take the workforce pool as it is--'regulation and socialization'--or government offering a health care plan of its own, hasn't your capacity to exercise your personal freedom been eviscerated in either case? It's the logic of 'hang for a penny, hang for a pound': why complain about the system getting more socialist, if the current "mixed economy" claptrap has taken away your personal freedom anyway? In other words, if we're going to take away personal freedom, wouldn't you prefer an efficient, effective system than a broken system that takes away your personal freedom nevertheless? |
CEO & Publisher Posts: 589 Joined: 12 Nov 2002 |
Sure. Rationally one ought to choose your ideal based on the net present value of your median income over your lifetime given the country's expected risk-adjusted growth rate. That would allow you to measure the value of a socialist haven with low growth versus a fast-growing, freer economy, and evaluate whether the rising tide really does lift your boat. If you have that data, it would be cool to see. I don't have the data handy, but I hereby hypothesize that the US would be in the top 5 in that measure. |
CEO & Publisher Posts: 589 Joined: 12 Nov 2002 |
You're asking me to argue for the lesser of two evils. I'd rather argue for good. "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke |
On the Record Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
I think that's where we--and many of the people you disagree with--would disagree: I would hypothesize a much lower rank. That, and we both serve two masters: you face a dilemma when presented with the choice between "bigger tide that floats all boats but is a product of government planning" or "smaller tide that floats all boats but is a product of the free market. I face the dilemma when presented with "bigger tide that sinks some boats" or "smaller tide that floats all boats." |
BANNED  Posts: 789 Joined: 8 Jul 2008   | Socialism is bad (sarcasm) we shouldn't try new things in our system (even more sarcasm) we should stick with the system that doesn't work (extreme sarcasm). User was banned for: The Xbox Screwed Me Over!. (Permanent) |
On the Record Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Are you sure you're arguing *for* good? Aren't you arguing *against* one of the evils (Europe), and the *lesser* one (Europe where at least it works, as opposed to America where the private insurance industry is heavily regulated to the point that it BOTH takes away the kind of choice you want AND doesn't work anyway), at that? |
Anonymous Source Posts: 1 Joined: 30 Oct 2008 | This is my first post so I hope I don't sound too stupid. I like the tenets of socialism. The rich give back to the lower classes, it seems fair. But to actually say that the left wingers (me for example) tell people you can't make something of yourself? How ridiculous. I have never advocated, and never heard anyone advocate this. But think of this. Can we all be CEO's, can we all be president, can we all be an Einstein? The answer is a resounding no. Also, to the people who say that socialism takes away the incentive to do great things, I strongly disagree. We have many countries that are socialist, and I'm pretty sure they have CEO's too. Just because you can't be super rich doesn't mean you can't afford a mansion or a nice car. I just means you can't own 3 mansions. Some people say health care isn't a right. I agree. But I still support government health care. Just because you don't have a fundamental right of something, doesn't mean you shouldn't have it. We are a relatively well off country with a lot of sick people who don't have health care. If we were some third world country, we wouldn't have the money, so I wouldn't be advocating this. But since we are, and have the ability to do so, I say go. Before I go, I found your (Mistah Kurtz)comparison to the right to food appalling. No one says you have the right to eat. But if you saw a starving man and had some extra food wouldn't you give him some? I certainly hope so! If you can't tell, I'm comparing the food example to socialism. I know that was blunt, but I don't want people to miss my point. Anyway, I hope we can keep the discussion going. |
On the Record Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Depending on how much we want to trust this article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/p17s02-cogn.html) it seems we're both half right/half wrong. After reading that, the questions become: (1) is America's superiority in median per capita gross domestic product tied to its inferior distribution of income making it better to be a poor Norwegian or Canadian than a poor American; (2) EDIT: if it is not, is there something the government could do make it so that America is as 'middle class' as Norway or Canada the other Western Liberal Democracies, i.e., that the bottom half is equal in each country and is mostly 'middle class', while the difference in wealth between countries only exists among the top half, maybe? That you'll only wind up in poverty if you choose not to even try, but that if you do try, you'll wind up at least middle class, and depending on talent and effort, possibly something much more than that; (3) if it can, is that a legitimate goal of government in the first place; (4) if it is, can it do so through measures that do not run afoul of infringing too much on personal freedom? My guess is that we disagree most strongly on (3) and a little less on (4), least on (1), and somewhere in the middle on (2). Probably because we disagree on how much America's dominance is due to individual efforts vs. advantages shared in trust, like Norway's oil. We have to remember one of the reasons we do so much better than Canada is, for example, our size and location: America has access to cold water fishing just like Canada, but Canada does not have access to warm weather agriculture--one of the shocking things about being in Canada (not as shocking as french fries at Taco Bell and milk in bags, but still) is that oranges are not considered everyday food, but rather closer to a treat like candy. Why? America's got cold weather states like Washington, Alaska, and the New England region for fish, but Canada doesn't have anywhere like Florida for citrus groves. I think a lot of America's success is because of things that no one owns, like our size, our geographical and climatic diversity, our proximity to a friendly canal in Panama, our massive coastlines and deep water ports on both the Pacific and Atlantic, etc. I think that's an undiscussed factor in explaining America's industrial and commercial might. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 387 Joined: 20 Sep 2008   | yo guys all the history defining momments usually happen without all these $5 words and constant bickering... its ALWAYS been done with action not words and since this website has something to do with games I'll stop with this BF:Bad Company quote "Acta non Verba" commance hating a 16 year old kid trying to get this thread a little more...entertaining |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 562 Joined: 6 Jul 2008  |
How somebody who has enough intelligence to use a keyboard can say this with a straight face is beyond me. Every socialist society has lead to a dictatorship and then crumbled under it's own stupidity. The concept is stupid, the practice is idiotic, and the supporters are hippie pot smoking college students who are going to be embarrassed with themselves when they look back on this type of idiocy. Socialism is NOT a good thing, and it has never BEEN a good thing.
Sounds like you know your bad company quotes. Why don't you go back to playing it? |
On the Record Posts: 6739 Joined: 10 Apr 2007 |
Has there ever been a socialist society that started out as a true democracy like modern US/UK/France/Germany, and wasn't a dictatorship to begin with? If they all start as dictatorships or one the road to being one, that's not proof that socialism leads to dictatorships. If you're making predictions about the U.S. if it went socialist, you need a country that had as healthy a democracy as the U.S. has that adopted socialism, and then slipped into a dictatorship. Otherwise, your argument is no stronger than the people who believed that swamp gases caused malaria--it wasn't the swamp gases, it's that anywhere you find swamp gases you find mosquitoes with malaria. Well, if everywhere you see socialism adopted, you see either a dictatorship in place or a weakened democracy, that doesn't prove socialism necessarily leads to dictatorship. You've confused correlation with causation in making predictions about socialism in the U.S. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 369 Joined: 3 Sep 2008 | If you ask me Socialism can be a very good thing if implemented correctly. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
The President doesn't control the economy. Consumers, bad borrowers, and a-holes who default on bad loans they should have never entered, do.
This whole home loan mess was out of the idea that all people deserve to own a home.... go democrats! And I'm sure at this point you want to mention the republican deregulation well, is it their responsibility to regulate a democratic initiative?
That's like me shooting my wife and getting angry at you for not regulating my gun handling practices.
I believe both parties are totally blowing it economically speaking, so this is not an advocation for Republicans however Obama has some very socialist minded civil service, education, medicare, and economic plans on the table that could do lots of damage in the current economic situation we are in.
Obama would have been pefefect if it was 1998.