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".
