Socialist Nirvana

[Vladimir Lenin]

Re: Collapse and Disintegration

If it wasn't for the shltty climate, I'd trade states for canada or uk
south of france ain't bad either

 

[Timebuilder]

Mar:

Sweden, Denmark, and Norway all exist as they do today because a large capitalist nation came to their rescue when their small armies and pacifist ideals left them nearly helpless in the face of the German advance.

I don't regard their societies as models of anything except the transfer of wealth to those who did not earn it.

 

[Foobar]

Uhhh yeah, the argument against socialism is that its bad because the countries are small and needed help in WWII

Brialliant...

I'd say we should change the topic but seeing as how we can't find jobs I guess there isn't much else to talk about!

 

[mar]

Fair is fair

Vlad, ya wanna trade some states? Let's start with Texas, eh? And where was Thurman from? One of the Carolinas? And what about Georgia?

Frozen tundra and fog ain't so bad....believe me.

TB--WWII was almost *60* years ago!!! What have they been doing for the past three score? Oh yeah, sucking off the big American tit. Once again you have single handedly insulted three nations at once.

Foobar--'zactly. If I wasn't sitting so much reserve....

...ah nevermind.

 

[DC4boy]

Mar, you dont belong anywhere near a Douglas product, let alone a 6!!!!!!

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

anyone up for good debate on AIM?

log in AIM

go to People

invite yourself to a chatroom named "hangartalk"

enjoy

 

[mar]

DC4 Boy

Well DC4 Boy, when you grow up maybe they'll let you fly the DC6 too.

Good luck!

 

[secks]

Sweden, Denmark, Norway ... countries whose economies run almost solely on service jobs. These countries produce very little. Their existence depends upon capitalistic economies which produce a bounty of products at low price. If every economy were structured like these socialist economies, there'd be no such thing as an internet.

As long as we're talking about success stories, I've got some horror stories. Communism brought us China and the Soviet Union. Socialism brought rising crime rates in Brittain (thanks to gun control), and pathetic healthcare in Canada. I could go on and on ..

 

[mar]

Oh! I get it now!

<<countries whose economies run almost solely on service jobs. These countries produce very little>>

...You mean just like the United States after that Commie Clinton and the Marxist Congress endorsed NAFTA and shipped all of those well-paying manufacturing jobs overseas?

Riiiigggghhhhtttt.
Ya, sure you betcha.

 

[secks]

mar:

So where is your argument? The U.S. has lost a significant number of manufacturing jobs as a result of outsourcing. Now how does this invalidate my point regarding your examples of socialist "success" stories?

 

[mar]

Fair question; I'll play.

America is held out as a monolithic bastion of Capitalism. Not even a program like Social Security escapes the criticism of rapid capitalists.

Certainly nothing in America would even *approach* that of the welfare state.

Right?

But your first paragraph:
"...countries whose economies run almost solely on service jobs. These countries produce very little. Their existence depends upon capitalistic economies which produce a bounty of products at low price."--nearly describes the present American economy.

After all, what would most of our manufacturers do if it wasn't for Thailand, Hong Kong and Malaysia?

As far as my "success stories" go...well, I suppose we could argue about literacy rates, mortality rates, unemployment rates, homeless rates and rates of children born out of wedlock...

I don't know.

I would say these countries, to name a few, are examples of successful socialism. Mixed economies, for sure, but aren't they all...?

Even America?

 

[secks]

Re: Fair question; I'll play.

America is held out as a monolithic bastion of Capitalism. Not even a program like Social Security escapes the criticism of rapid capitalists.

Certainly nothing in America would even *approach* that of the welfare state.

Right?

But your first paragraph:
"...countries whose economies run almost solely on service jobs. These countries produce very little. Their existence depends upon capitalistic economies which produce a bounty of products at low price."--nearly describes the present American economy.

After all, what would most of our manufacturers do if it wasn't for Thailand, Hong Kong and Malaysia?

As far as my "success stories" go...well, I suppose we could argue about literacy rates, mortality rates, unemployment rates, homeless rates and rates of children born out of wedlock...

I don't know.

I would say these countries, to name a few, are examples of successful socialism. Mixed economies, for sure, but aren't they all...?

Even America?

America is hardly a bastion of capitalism. All taxes considered, your typical taxpayer can easily lose 40-50% of his income to the government. If you want to see a bastion of capitalism, look no further than Hong Kong. Of course, that's another story for another day.

Yes, there are many aspects of the American economy which do reek of welfare. Social security, medicare, medicaid, and a gigantic, wasteful beauracracy. Old people don't want pay for their own medication and operations, illegal immigrants don't want to pay for their hospital stay, civil servants don't want to put in eight hours of hard work, etc. Plenty of welfare being doled out, that's for sure.

Our manufacturers go where the labor is cheap. That's capitalism. I still don't see your point. The jobs may leave the U.S., but the majority of developers, investors, and customers remain here. Btw, I don't personally condone blindly outsourcing jobs for the sake of lower prices, but again, that's another topic.

Attributing social metrics such as literacy and mortality to "socialism" is very weak. The real issue there is culture, not the economy. It doesn't take a great educational system to produce stellar students. For example, students in Barbados are predominantly poor, and attend schools with little more than desks, pencil and paper. Yet, these students average 1300 on their SATs, whereas we avg. somewhere around 1000. It's not the educators/schools which make the difference, it's the culture and family environment.

While your success story countries may tout a few impressive statistics, in the grand scheme of things, they are merely footnotes. They have practically no influence over politics and technology, as opposed to much of Asia and the U.S, which tend to be capitalistic.

 

[mar]

Good response

Dang you're good. You might be the first "anti-socialist" to admit America has a strong social tradition and isn't quite the nation of rugged individualists we think we are.

But listen, I disagree that the elderly don't want to pay for medicine or the aliens don't want to pay for healthcare. Who can afford that stuff without a decent insurance program? And who offers decent insurance these days? We're a nation of downsized temps!

To be perfectly honest I wasn't too happy with my last response. I don't think I entirely answered your question but I was trying to make the point that if transitioning our work force from manufacturing to service is good enough in the US of A then why should we be so quick to condemn another nation for having a similiar economy?

After all, we're the ones who hold ourselves out as a leader of the free world--Sweden, Norway and Denmark have their problems but they certainly aren't "collapsing and disintegrating" as another poster asserted.

Still, your final point was that since they aren't leaders in technology or politics (as other more prevalent capitalistic nations are) that this somehow diminishes their role in the world scene....(???)....and are therefore less successful?

Am I understanding you?

I think it may be like a pilot trying to get to the majors. Some don't see any point at being in the industry unless you're flying the heavy metal on an ALPA contract. And there are others who are perfectly content flying small potatos to Podunk, Idaho.

Who's to say what makes a society successful?

A social scientist might use the same objective criteria I listed in my previous post.

Listen, thanks, I'm hitting the sack. To be continued?

 

[Timebuilder]

Uhhh yeah, the argument against socialism is that its bad because the countries are small and needed help in WWII

Perhaps you missed what I was saying. I think so.

These countries only exist because a capitalist country stepped in and bailed them out when their socialist system failed to provide for their defense. It isn't because they "are small and needed help", its because "they thought that being socialist and pacificist might be good enough to keep them going".

Now if you want to talk about the argument against socialism, fine.

Socialism distributes benefit in an impersonal way from those who produce to those who do not. The way people who do not produce are supposed to be handled in a capitalist society is by charity that involves direct contact with people. When you get a check in the mail, you have no motivation to change that. When someone brings you a hot meal and a blanket, they will no doubt ask you if you have gone on any job interviews, or they may ask if you called the number they gave you last week.

This is called accountability. With a faceless government giving out benefits, you end up with what we have now: entitlements.

TB--WWII was almost *60* years ago!!! What have they been doing for the past three score? Oh yeah, sucking off the big American tit. Once again you have single handedly insulted three nations at once.

What have they been doing? Enjoying this special status that other nations have granted to them. This "neutrality" is a result of Malta and the efforts of the United States to provide a stable European continent during the "cold" war following the defense of these countries during the "hot" war.

America is held out as a monolithic bastion of Capitalism. Not even a program like Social Security escapes the criticism of rapid capitalists.

I have critcized social security.

Its first payment, to its first recipient, exceeded what that person had "paid in" to the system. And it's been stright downhill from there. One broadcaster I know calls it a "Ponzi Scheme". A pretty accurate description.

But your first paragraph:"...countries whose economies run almost solely on service jobs. These countries produce very little. Their existence depends upon capitalistic economies which produce a bounty of products at low price."--nearly describes the present American economy.

I don't think so. Who would the other capitalist countries be who could satisy our needs? Not only are we still engaged in manufacturing, but the outsourcing is still under our control, making US products in an environmnet that is free from OSHA and the EPA and the trial lawyers. While we all agreed, at least initially, that these government actions were positive, we found out over time that other countries would no follow our lead, which has created these "low cost havens" for manufacturing. Now, we are in the bed that we created. It's up to us to fix that.

But don't worry. No one has the guts to fix that. Just like social security, we are caught on the horns of our own sacred cows.

Dang you're good. You might be the first "anti-socialist" to admit America has a strong social tradition and isn't quite the nation of rugged individualists we think we are.

Maybe you missed it when I said that we have been poisoned by FDR and his social programs that now rule our government and our nation.

It makes me wonder what has hapened to "the greatest generation". If they were really just demanding the benefits that they had paid for, those benefits would end in a few short years. Instead, they go on as long as you can exist on a respirator. That wasn't the intent of the SS system. We need to key the age at which you can begin recieving benefits to life expectancy. For example, when benefits began , you were not expected to live much past 60. So, if we are living to 75 now, benefits should start at 70. That way, you get what you put in, which is fair, but you don't end up living off of two or three working people who are not your children.

But listen, I disagree that the elderly don't want to pay for medicine or the aliens don't want to pay for healthcare. Who can afford that stuff without a decent insurance program?

These services are as expensive as they are BECAUSE insurance exists. An average income earner can't compete in the marketplace with the deep-pocketed insurance companies.

Sweden, Norway and Denmark have their problems but they certainly aren't "collapsing and disintegrating" as another poster asserted.

No, they exist because there are a lot of other countries that are not following the same drummer, and they can exist as they do because the economic benefits are created elswhere.

I think it may be like a pilot trying to get to the majors. Some don't see any point at being in the industry unless you're flying the heavy metal on an ALPA contract. And there are others who are perfectly content flying small potatos to Podunk, Idaho.

But, and this is a BIG but, both of the pilots you cited are WORKING, producing economic benefit. To compare capitalism and socialism, you have to compare a charter pilot who is saving and investing so he can buy out the carrier for whom he flys, even by pooling money with other pilots, and someone who sits at home and watches airplanes on TV, and says "it would be nice to fly, but I am comfortable here just watching someone else do it".

 

[secks]

Re: Good response

But listen, I disagree that the elderly don't want to pay for medicine or the aliens don't want to pay for healthcare. Who can afford that stuff without a decent insurance program? And who offers decent insurance these days? We're a nation of downsized temps!

I expect the elderly to have saved up enough money to purchase private insurance. The same goes for everyone else. To think that my middle-class family works nearly half the year to foot other people's medical bills sickens me. If I recall correctly, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid comprise well over half the U.S. tax expenditures .. imho, that's just too much.

With respect to illegal immigrants, I have no sympathy for them. Immigration should be well-regulated, and by violating our regulations, illegal aliens compromise our tax system, among other things.

You're right about medical bills being too expensive without insurance. An MRI costs about $3k out of pocket, but only a few hundred with insurance. That is absolutely rediculous. Here again, this is why people should purchase private insurance if their employer does not provide it. If that's not an option, hospitals always offer payment plans.

I don't pretend to know exactly why private medical costs are so expensive, but one thing is for sure, medical regulations don't help. Why on earth can't I go to a bone-setter to fix a broken bone? Or go to a physical therapist without a doctor's order? Or purchase medication from Canada?

To be perfectly honest I wasn't too happy with my last response. I don't think I entirely answered your question but I was trying to make the point that if transitioning our work force from manufacturing to service is good enough in the US of A then why should we be so quick to condemn another nation for having a similiar economy?

I wouldn't call the U.S. economy similar to Scandanavian economies simply because we're progressing towards a service oriented economy. The U.S. still has the money, idea people, entrepeneurial (sp?) spirit, and relatively pro-business climte. Can you say the same for Scandanavian economies? Not really ..

That said, I don't have much faith in the U.S. recovering from our current economic situation. I think we're seeing the beginning of a slow economic decline. More technology, manufacturing, and investment will move overseas. Productive jobs will permenantly leave. We will be left behind, while Asian capitalism will leap ahead. Pat Buchanan, as per usual, will be proven correct.

After all, we're the ones who hold ourselves out as a leader of the free world--Sweden, Norway and Denmark have their problems but they certainly aren't "collapsing and disintegrating" as another poster asserted.

They're not collapsing, but they certainly are stagnating. The rest of the world develops the products and technology Scandanavia consumes, while countries with large militaries (that's us) ensure that their militarily neutral stance is secure. How convenient ...

Still, your final point was that since they aren't leaders in technology or politics (as other more prevalent capitalistic nations are) that this somehow diminishes their role in the world scene....(???)....and are therefore less successful?

Am I understanding you?

Who's to say what makes a society successful?

Of course, it all depends on how you define success. Some liberal social scientists would refer to primitive cultures as successful due to their natural, simplistic outlook on life. A more conservative social scientist would consider an advanced society to be more successful due to it's constant struggle to improve quality of life through technology.

The same goes for defining success throughout a person's life. Is the happy, poor pilot more successful than the bored, wealthy, laywer? Depends on who you ask.

Imho, to define success on an internet forum as anything other than using technology to better mankind is inconsistent. In this respect, I put socialistic economies which contribute little in the way of products and technology in the unsuccessful column.

 

[Timebuilder]

Well said...

I don't pretend to know exactly why private medical costs are so expensive, but one thing is for sure, medical regulations don't help.

There are two reasons I can think of.

Insurance allows the costs of medical treatment to steadily rise. Few people can pay for an MRI out of pocket, by insurance companies can. The result? The "cost" of an MRI becomes three thousand dollars.

The other cost is litigation. Most of the doctors we have are the finest in the world. I don't see the advantage of huge awards against doctors who are practicing medicine in good faith. Smelling like booze in th O.R.? That's a different matter. The truth is that WE are the people who are most responsible for our health, and no one else.

Hundreds of doctors have left Pennsylvania because of skyrocketing malpractice costs. Is this because doctors are making more mistakes in my state? No. It is because lawyers are getting huge awards for themselves, a portion of which they give to their clients.

If everyone can afford healthcare, and the uninsured don't have to compete against the insured, then healthcare costs will come down. Limit liability, and anyone will be able to afford medicine.

Insurance is the problem, not the solution.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Re: Well said...

.

Insurance is the problem, not the solution.

This will sound cynical (again), but the guberment is probably foaming at the mouth to be the "solution" for healthcare "issues".

 

[secks]

TimeBuilder:

I think those doctors in Pennsylvania were actually ER surgeons who went on strike due to malpractice insurance premiums being so expensive. It's typical for a surgeon's insurance premiums to break $100k and even go as high as $300k in the case of ObGyns.

I read an article by the ABA (yes, yes, I know) which made a very good case against blaming lawyers for expensive insurance premiums. The article analyzed statistics collected from the state of Texas. First, plots were shown which demonstrated the steady rise of TX malpractice premiums over the past decade. This data was then plotted against medical malpractice payouts. The amount of money payed out pretty much pegged the inflation rate. No correlation. However, when plotted against market indicators (again, the facts are foggy), there was a clear connection. As market indicators tanked, insurance premiums rose. This isn't surprising, as insurance companies invest much of their money in stocks and whatnot. In order to make up the difference, premiums were increased.

It really makes you stop and think about the sort of money that could be made by offering low-cost malpractice insurance to doctors ... too bad it's extremely regulated.

 

[secks]

Re: Re: Well said...

This will sound cynical (again), but the guberment is probably foaming at the mouth to be the "solution" for healthcare "issues".

Ever heard of a saucy bitch by the name of Hillary Clinton? She's down with socialized healthcare. It will happen, eventually ..

 

[Timebuilder]

Cynical? No.

I think that a number of big government types, Senator Clinton being the most visible, want a government sponsored health insurance plan.

THEY will determine your premium. How much will you pay in taxes?

THEY will determine your coverage. What? You mean that grandma isn't covered?

THEY will control your access. You have to wait HOW LONG????

THEY will approve procedures. You mean I can't have that done?

THEY will asess costs. How much is my portion??????

Bad idea.