Question For Our Right-winged Posters
CommunistWithAGun
Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">(This is serious, not personal attacks)</div> In my quest for knowledge and understanding (you can't tell by the way I post, I can explain why I post the way I do if need be but here goes)
I want to understand how people can support ring-winged opinions. Problems this persuasion has created is
<ul><li>Unemployment</li><li>Degraded civil rights</li><li>Degraded political rights</li><li>Damaged economy</li><li>Job cuts</li><li>Big business corruption</li><li>Mass-Layoffs</li><li>Selling work to overseas nations for cheaper production</li><li>Allowing big business to have a large say in the political process</li><li>Lengthing the gap between poor and middle class.</li></ul>
This is NOT an insult. In a theoretical situation, my opinion would lead to a utopia of equality and ultimate freedom. However, the conservative extreme in theory would be a corporate police state.
I'm just trying to understand why people feel the way they do, even with the problems they cause. (Im not saying my way is right, because history has taught us what happens when bad people promise good things)
I want to understand how people can support ring-winged opinions. Problems this persuasion has created is
<ul><li>Unemployment</li><li>Degraded civil rights</li><li>Degraded political rights</li><li>Damaged economy</li><li>Job cuts</li><li>Big business corruption</li><li>Mass-Layoffs</li><li>Selling work to overseas nations for cheaper production</li><li>Allowing big business to have a large say in the political process</li><li>Lengthing the gap between poor and middle class.</li></ul>
This is NOT an insult. In a theoretical situation, my opinion would lead to a utopia of equality and ultimate freedom. However, the conservative extreme in theory would be a corporate police state.
I'm just trying to understand why people feel the way they do, even with the problems they cause. (Im not saying my way is right, because history has taught us what happens when bad people promise good things)
Comments
* Unemployment
* Degraded civil rights
* Degraded political rights
* Damaged economy
* Job cuts
* Big business corruption
* Mass-Layoffs
* Selling work to overseas nations for cheaper production
* Allowing big business to have a large say in the political process
* Lengthing the gap between poor and middle class.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll address the business ones first, since I think that is my stronger area at the moment.
* Unemployment
American unemployment is significantly lower than most other nations, including those with large state welfare programs like France and Germany. While Americans balk at our 5.4% unemployment rate, Germany is touting a 10.6% unemployment rate with no end in sight. While America woes over our 3% growth rate, the EU is pulling only 1.7%. American unemployment, even with jobs being shipped over seas, is still significantly better than that of European nations.
* Damaged economy
As I addressed above, the U.S. economy is still far stronger than any European nation or Japan. There's a reason that America is still the gold standard of economics. If things were really as bad as some doomsday prophets were saying, we'd have massive unemployment and the DJ would be tanking. Considering that it's still over 10,000, things aren't that bad.
* Job cuts
The August job numbers just came out with 144,000 jobs added. While it's 6,000 shy of the predicted 150,000 jobs, it's not far off. We've been increasing the number of jobs recently. I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with Bush's tax cuts, but rather that the economy needed a self correction. If things get too hot, there tends to be some explosions while the market brings itself back to reasonable levels.
* Big business corruption
People will cut corners and steal things. What you don't read about every day is the millions of people and tens of thousands of companies that don't cook the books or give golden parachute packages to executives when the company is failing. Saying that all business is corrupt is a massive overstatement that just isn't true. People go into business to make money. That's the point of business. It's not to deliver a product to the populace or to deliver a necessary or convenient service. Business is about profit.
* Mass-Layoffs
See Job cuts. Also, see Unemployment.
Also, don't put the same thing three times.
* Selling work to overseas nations for cheaper production
Other people are willing to do it cheaper, so businesses employ them. It's basic economics. You don't have a right to employment. It's naive to think that a nation that is mostly based on subsistence agriculture can become a modern, industrialized nation overnight without the pains of having an industrial revolution. The more the UN and other nations stick their noses in there, the longer it's going to take.
* Lengthing the gap between poor and middle class.
I haven't actually seen any numbers on this recently. A credible link would be appreciated.
I want to understand how people can support ring-winged opinions. Problems this persuasion has created is<ul>
</li><li>Unemployment
</li><li>Degraded civil rights
</li><li>Degraded political rights
</li><li>Damaged economy
</li><li>Job cuts
</li><li>Big business corruption
</li><li>Mass-Layoffs
</li><li>Selling work to overseas nations for cheaper production
</li><li>Allowing big business to have a large say in the political process
</li><li>Lengthing the gap between poor and middle class.
</li></ul>This is NOT an insult. In a theoretical situation, my opinion would lead to a utopia of equality and ultimate freedom. However, the conservative extreme in theory would be a corporate police state.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
CWAG, If you can explain to me how those things are cause by 'right-wing' beliefs and not by corrupt human beings seeking their own advancement then I will explain how I can hold conservative views that "create" the problem.
It is my firm belief that Humanity was never kicked out of Eden, we live there now. Our continual actions are what keeps us from living in a paradise. Take a good look at the world around you and realize that we live in a possible utopia but refuse to see or reach for it.
However, I feel that Man must reach this Eden not through acts of government but by the evolution of the human Spirit. Even if the government could provide a comfortable life for everyone I would not accept it. The benevolence bestowed upon the populace would not be created by the human heart but by the cold feeding tube of Big Brother. The government would know what is best for everyone and how you should act. Benevolent, yes, but it would be nothing more than a dictatorship. Once we reached the status quo there would be no more advancement of Humanity in general. We would become the same.
Do I believe Society can ever reach the lofty ideals I set for it? No. But it is the struggle towards such a goal that makes us Alive. It is the stuggle for a better future without resorting to compassionate compulsion.
edit: you might find it interesting that I am conservative and yet while using religious symbolism is completely secular.
Degraded political rights <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you explain this further please.
Degraded political rights <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you explain this further please. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Freedom and equality have often been reserved for the wealthy (republican/neo-conservatives) I honestly cannot think of one republican that is NOT wealthy//financially secure.
As to degraded political rights, well, money goes farther than a vote does in this day and age.
As to degraded political rights, well, money goes farther than a vote does in this day and age.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the purposes of this post, and probably subsequent posts, I'm going to refer to money, work and goods as <i>production.</i> That's really what money is. It's a means to measure what you've produced, either in goods or services.
To address the first point, what rights do the wealthy have that the poor do not? They do have much more in their capacity to produce and maintain their production, but they had to start somewhere. The problem with the free market is that it requires intelligent, informed people participating in it. People who work harder, or smarter as the case is now, will earn more. To say that the poor never get a chance is incorrect as well. There are a lot of opportunities to succeed in the world, both here in America and in places abroad. However, it's the responsibility of the individual, and not the state, to work for and utilize those opportunities.
For the second part, I agree with you to a point. Free market capitalism works best when the government is small and unintrusive. However, the government has swelled to massive proportions and sticks it's nose into the business of everyone and everything. When the government is small, there really isn't anything to influence, short of bribing a Senator. However, that's illegal, and the businessman should be punished with massive monetary fees. As is, the government is so large and unwieldy that businesses can influence things heavily.
The point I disagree with you on is that money is more valuble than a vote. Democracy, like free market capitalism, depends on an intelligent and informed populace that remains skeptical of the government and yanks the leash hard when the government steps out of line. Currently, the only reason money is seen as being more valuble is because many people are stupid. It's harsh, but it's true. I don't think that poeple should be in the business of coddling the stupid and ineffective.
To tell the truth, I'm rather a quasi-Libertarian and not a conservative in the sense that George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan are. I agree with free market capitalism, but I think that restrictions on morality aren't the business of government. I think that I am the best qualified person to tell me how to live my life and that you're the best qualified to live yours. If I want to go and smoke some marijuana, that's my business and not Uncle Sam's. If I want to get married to another man, that's my business and not Uncle Sam's. If I want to go to a holy roller church, be an atheist or cover myself with honey and run naked through the forest yelling, "Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! I am Zombie Jesus!" I'm the one to make that choice.
Freedom and equality have often been reserved for the wealthy (republican/neo-conservatives) I honestly cannot think of one republican that is NOT wealthy//financially secure.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My mother was a secretary, my dad a steelworker.
When I was born, both were out of a job. Currently my mother just lost her job and is at the moment, unemployed.
I say that would count towards not being financially secure. Certainly my family could never have been considered wealthy.
As to degraded political rights, well, money goes farther than a vote does in this day and age. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That has less to do with any 'right wing' conspiracy than it has to do with apathetic and ignorant voters who keep such people in office.
Next week I am meeting with my former congressman (redistricting) to discuss human rights abuses. He is also the one who nominated me for a military Academy appointment. I never gave him a dime.
edit: Joe Pitts, R-PA
Edit: I was a bit more quick with these posts than I normally would be. I just felt that you were making broad assumptions.
Left-wingers would believe in a strong central government, legalize marijuana, give tax breaks to the poor and heavy taxes on the rich. The rich would become the not so rich, and a huge inefficient engine would exist at the capital trying to service the rest of the nation with horrible results. Taxes would have to be boosted to compensate, and there'd be so much inflation that the rich would not even be rich anymore.
Right-wingers would allow companies to roam rampant doing whatever they would like. Monopolies would pop up all over the nation because small businesses would be squashed out. Prices would be raised everywhere, and the working man would suffer. The rich wouldn't suffer any penalties, but mostly everone else would have difficulty buying food. The rich would get richer, the poor would get poorer.
I just know that while our system is probably pretty inefficient, at least it is balanced. Obviously there are varying degrees of balance, but so long as there is some sort of equilibrium.
I am sure you have seen this diagram before.
But if Dems are on the left wing, and Republicans are on the right wing,
Who should be in the cockpit <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although the black-box usually survives the most disasters because it's in the tail section. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I would like to introduce you to Walter E. Williams. Dr. Williams is a key professor of economics at George Mason University and was head of their economics department for many years. Dr. Williams is a self-described Libertarian which places him in the pure fiscally Conservative column. Note, he is not a Republican. After reading through the articles I've included, if you check the Republican Party website for their platform you will notice the difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Economics 101</b>
Economic ignorance allows us to fall easy prey to political charlatans and demagogues, so how about a little Economics 101.
How many times have we heard "free tuition", "free healthcare", and free you-name-it? If a particular good or service is truly free, we can have as much of it that we want without the sacrifice of other goods or services. Take a "free" library; is it really free? The answer is no. Had the library not been built, that $50 million could have purchased something else. That something else sacrificed is the cost of the library. While users of the library might pay a zero price, zero price and free are not one and the same. So when politicians talk about providing something free, ask them to identify the beneficent Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy.
It's popular to condemn greed but it's greed that gets wonderful things done. When I say greed, I don't mean stealing, fraud, misrepresentation, and other forms of dishonesty. I mean people trying to get as much as they can for themselves. We don't give second thought to the many wonderful things that others do for us. Detroit assembly line workers get up at the crack of dawn to produce the car that you enjoy. Farm workers toil in the blazing sun gathering grapes for our wine. Snowplow drivers brave blizzards just so we can have access to our roads. Do you think these people make these personal sacrifice because they care about us? My bet is that they don't give a hoot. Instead, they along with their bosses do these wonderful things for us because they want more for themselves.
People in the education and political establishments pretend they're not motivated by such "callous" motives as greed and profits. These people "care" about us but which areas of our lives do we derive the greatest pleasures and have the fewest complaints, and which areas do we have the greatest headaches and complaints? We tend to have a high satisfaction level with goods and services like computers, cell phones, movies, clothing and supermarkets. These are areas were the motivation is greed and profits. Our greatest dissatisfaction are in areas of caring and no profit motive such as public education, postal services, and politics. Give me greed and profits and you can keep the caring.
How about the idea that if it saves just one life it's worth it? That's some of the stated justification for government mandates for child-proof medicine bottles, gun locks, bike helmets and all sorts of warning labels. No doubt there's a benefit to these government mandates but if we only look at benefits we'll do darn near anything because there's always a benefit to any action. For example, why not have a congressionally mandated five mph highway speed limit? According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, there were 43,220 highway fatalities in 2003 with an estimated cost of $230 billion. A five mph speed limit would have spared our nation of this loss of life and billions of dollars.
You say, "Williams, that's preposterous!" You're right. Most people would agree that a five mph speed limit is stupid, impractical and insane. That's one way of putting it but what they really mean is: the benefit of saving 43,200 highway deaths and the $230 billion, that would result from mandating a five mph speed limit, isn't worth all the inconvenience, delays and misery.
Admittedly, the five mph speed limit is an extreme example, a reductio ad absurdum. Nonetheless, it illustrates the principle that our actions shouldn't be guided by benefits only; we should also ask about costs. Again when politicians come to us pretending they're Santa Clauses or Tooth Fairies delivering benefits only, we should ask what's the cost and who's going to pay and why.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Socialism is Evil</b>
What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of those left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property is eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately we call it theft. When it's done collectively we use the euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.
Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities, and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.
Regardless of the purpose such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.
The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first through intimidation, threats and coercion take that dollar from some other American.
Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal but did that make them moral?
Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.
An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft legal or illegal is despicable. Or, put another way: reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.
For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And, I'm sure that if you asked God if it's okay just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Socialism is Evil: Part II</b>
Positive reader response to "Socialism Is Evil" was quite surprising. That column argued that it was an immoral, not to mention an unconstitutional, act for Congress, through the tax code, to confiscate the earnings of one American to give to another American in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts. It's immoral because it forcibly uses one person to serve the purposes of another. Indeed, that's one way to define slavery and other forms of servitude.
Several letters of disagreement interpreted my argument as being against taxation. They used the sleight-of-hand approach saying that we need taxation for nation defense, the courts and other constitutionally authorized purposes as if that observation meant that taxation for any other purpose was just as legitimate. Let me be explicit. Taxes to finance certain federal activities are indeed legitimate as well as constitutional.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates just what federal functions Congress has taxing and spending authority. Among them are national defense, Post Office and post roads, courts and a few other activities. Or, as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected."
Nowhere in our Constitution is there even a hint of authority for most of what Congress taxes and spends for today. Don't be tricked by those who'd argue that Congress has such authority under the Constitution's "general welfare" clause. James Madison explained, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them . . .." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." The "detail of powers" or those "specifically enumerated" refer to what's actually laid out in the Constitution. The Framers had the foresight to see that these powers might need modification. That's why they gave us Article V as a means to amend the Constitution.
One reader criticized, "The essence of democracy is that the will of the majority conveys legitimacy to actions of the state." That's a sad commentary on both understanding and education. The Founders didn't intend for us to be a democracy but instead a republic. But more importantly, majority rule often confers an aura of legitimacy to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyranny. Let's look at it.
Consider a few everyday decisions such as: whom we marry, what food we eat, where we live, and what clothes we wear. How many of us would want majority rule to determine those decisions. For example, your family would like ham for Thanksgiving dinner, and vacation in Mexico but you're prevented from doing so because the majority of Americans decided on turkey for Thanksgiving and vacations in Canada. Were decisions actually made this way, most of us would agree that we'd be living in a state of tyranny.
Of course these particular decisions aren't made through a majority rule political process but they do illustrate that there's nothing sacrosanct about majority rule; it can be just another form of tyranny. It's just as tyrannical for majority rule to determine other choices such as: retirement (Social Security), prescription drugs, healthcare and other unconstitutional uses of a person's earnings.
When the democratic process reigns in matters of constitutionally enumerated federal government matters, we have the liberty that the Framers envisioned - anywhere else it most likely means tyranny.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, if you got through all that, you'll begin to see the difference between Conservative fiscal thought and the Republican version.
I strongly recommend reading more of Dr. Williams. You can find a list of archived articles <a href='http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles.html' target='_blank'>on his website.</a>
Most of the problems you listed aren't caused by people's political beliefs, but rather by the fact that they are corrupt and greedy. Blaming all people who hold a certain political ideaology (not to mention actually blaming 3 groups of people and then mixing them together) for the country's problems isn't right and you damn well know it. If I said "How can anyone stand to be Muslim, look at all the terrorism and destruction they make!" I would be flamed to death, and rightly so. Not all terrorists are Muslim and not all Muslims are terrorists. I think you get the point.
In my mind, there are two causes of the problems that you mentioned: corruption and apathy. Corruption leads to people doing dishonest and unethical things to further their own personal gain. Apathy leads to those in charge (this would be the voting public) to not stop those who are corrupt. Additionally, apathy breeds ignorance, which causes and worsens problems. To quote Spooge's quote,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ignorance allows us to fall easy prey to political charlatans and demagogues<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CWAG+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CWAG)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom and equality have often been reserved for the wealthy (republican/neo-conservatives) I honestly cannot think of one republican that is NOT wealthy//financially secure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither can I, but I can't think of a single democrat who isn't filthy rich either. Bottom line, all the big name politicians are disgustingly rich. Why? Because you have to have boatloads of money to compete in the political arena in America these days.
Are there lots of problems in America? Yes, there are. Are these problems the fault of conservatives? No, though I will say that you can place some of the blame on the republican party (note the distinction between 'republican party' and 'conservatives') as well as on the democratic party. Both of them are terrible as far as I'm concerned.
He should have mentioned how socialism becomes progressively worse as the size of a state increases. Take the Scandanavian nations first off. Norway is often hailed as a shining example of how socialism can work. Of course it works in Norway. It's a nation with 4.5 million people and a wealth of natural resources, including a great deal of petroleum and mineral resources. A wealthy nation with a population that's smaller than NYC couldn't help to be well off. However, Norway is still feeling the crunch with an economy that's exhibiting very low growth. Sweden is similar, only more technology and no oil. Sweden managed to build up a surplus before the 2002 problems, but their growth rate is still half of ours.
The problem is magnified as we increase the scale. France and Germany are suffering problems under social programs. In 2003, France had a 9.6% unemployment rate and Germany currently has a 10.6% rate. The large numbers of unemployed are taking a toll on the governments. Schroder has actually moved to cut unemployment benefits in order to get government spending under control, but it looks like he's going to lose the election because of it. Heaven forbid that Schroder actually try to get spending under control.
The system continues to break down even more as the nations get larger and larger. Look at China. China was state run and the only thing that kept the nation from going under was Deng Xiaopeng's reforms which made the country very capitalistic. Now China, like India, is developing a booming middle class and is coming into the modern world. You can see it in their oil consumption. It's skyrocketing, which accounts for part of the $44/barrel price tag that we see. Capitalism is a requirement to make it into the 21st century.
I know that my posts are very economic in nature, but there's really no seperating economics from socialism/capitalism. The reason socialism isn't effective is because it's government run. Governments aren't efficient. Rather than cut waste, they rachet up taxes. In nationalized industries, there's no incentive to work harder because there's no competition for you and your production. If I'm a mechanical engineer for Renault, there's really no other competition for me to work at short of moving to Germany or America. I'm going to get paid the same regardless of my output and even if I don't have a job, I'll still get plenty of unemployment. Socialism effectively appeals to the lazy inside everybody by capping just how productive you can be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know that my posts are very economic in nature, but there's really no seperating economics from socialism/capitalism. The reason socialism isn't effective is because it's government run. Governments aren't efficient. Rather than cut waste, they rachet up taxes. In nationalized industries, there's no incentive to work harder because there's no competition for you and your production. If I'm a mechanical engineer for Renault, there's really no other competition for me to work at short of moving to Germany or America. I'm going to get paid the same regardless of my output and even if I don't have a job, I'll still get plenty of unemployment. Socialism effectively appeals to the lazy inside everybody by capping just how productive you can be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Sweden and Norway has socialism, then Denmark (where I live) has it as well..
Alot of the welfare, public institutions etc.. are being offered to private companies, which in turns helps growth and jobs AND ensures the lowest cost possible .. So Socialism is actually helping the economy and welfare is actually better for a country than not?
No. Welfare is just the prime example of socialism, so it gets used a lot. Health care, social security and even public education fall under socialized arenas. I do think that public education is a worthwhile task, but I'll be the first to admit that it has problems and is woefully inefficient.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Sweden and Norway has socialism, then Denmark (where I live) has it as well..
Alot of the welfare, public institutions etc.. are being offered to private companies, which in turns helps growth and jobs AND ensures the lowest cost possible .. So Socialism is actually helping the economy and welfare is actually better for a country than not?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's helping the economy because they're being privatized, not because they were nationalized. If a private company is running something, it's not nationalized. The only problem is a lot of privatizations from former national programs go to only one company, which has exclusive rights. In that case, the lack of competition doesn't help much. Running a company with profit in mind makes people look for better ways to run business, because you have the bottom line to worry about. It's the act of privatization that helps the economy by ensuring low costs and spuring growth.
I am sure you have seen this diagram before.
But if Dems are on the left wing, and Republicans are on the right wing,
Who should be in the cockpit <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interestingly, I'm writing a topic somewhat related to this, and I made my own graph which i think is a little more accurate. Anyway, here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->* Unemployment
American unemployment is significantly lower than most other nations, including those with large state welfare programs like France and Germany. While Americans balk at our 5.4% unemployment rate, Germany is touting a 10.6% unemployment rate with no end in sight. While America woes over our 3% growth rate, the EU is pulling only 1.7%. American unemployment, even with jobs being shipped over seas, is still significantly better than that of European nations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Americas unemployment rate is significantly lower because of higher flexibility on the market. People lose their jobs, then move on and get another.
In many european countries, especially in Germany , it is relatively difficulty to fire personnel, as its restricted by law to a certain degree. Also the unemployed get a certain percentager of their last income paid by the state over a half a year (I think, I could look up if you are interested), afterwards, the state welfare kicks in to prevent falling to poverty.
This generated problems with people living on welfare instead of working and earn extra money on illicit work, thus damadging the society further.
That is not some "right wing ranting" it is proven fact. Right at the moment, there are discussions about cutting on unemployment welfare and "force" unemployed to take on jobs they are offered by the governmental jobcenters ( thats how we call them since a scandal about their inefectivity drew public attention to them and they got "reformed. Has a nice ring doesn't it? [/sarcasm]).
The effect was, that even before that law actually passed the parliament, the jobcenters were able to mediate jobs that were not taken for years. You see, people get lazy if you let them.
Also, this extensive wellfare generates enormous amounts of additional costs for the employers, which renders German workforce simply too expensive to remain in production in Germany. The Wages paid by an employer actually are nearly 50 percent additional cost like taxes and welfare.
The outcome is, that most companies, even those native to Germany, moved their production facilities to other countries.
Also, the American economy is more active and easier to stimulate, because when your government invests 20 billion Dollars, they actually invest 20 million Dollars and the economy reacts.
In Germany, the same amount of money is wasted in taxes, buerocracy and misinvestments due to conflicts between politics and economy (out current government is in coalition with an ecologist party) that require unpractical compromises.
Also, we waste terrible amounts of money to impractical investments and policies (like replacable energies) because of said ecologists.
Also, we have problems with the former DDR, the part of Germany that was occupied by Sovjet forces. Thie land was economically virtually destroyed, and the reunio costs enormous amounts of money. Also, Germany is alongside with France the netto donator to the EU.
With that, we have to carry foreing economies to a certain extent.
The list goes on, so don't complain too much about good ol' American kapitalism and don't dream too much of sozial utopia.
It never can work, because men is not fit to preserve it once it is achieved. There is hardly any, non Oil exporting, country in the world that has an equally dense Sozial welfare system as Germany. Yet, we reached a point where we no longer can sustain it and have tie the belt a bit faster. On the other side.... there is seldomly someone in need to take 2 jobs to make a living. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm going to take as an accurate assumption that you'd frown upon someone using a nazi swastika in their avatar/.sig/whatever.
If that is the case, why do you feel ok using the hammer and sicle? I see alot of people using that symbol with varying degrees of irony and earnestness, and I've never gotten why people feel it's fine to use the h&s but not the swastika.
Here is my reasoning.
1. Most estimates peg the number of people killed by the nazis in awful ways at around 6 million.
2. The hammer and sicle are exclusively a symbol of Soviet Russia, they have no inherent relation to communism as a philosophy (in fact, Marxist communism has <b>nothing</b> to do with what happened in Russia. Marx envisioned communism as an intellectual revolution that would occur in Germany, seeing it as the next step in the line of "revolutions" that Hegel basically invented out of whole cloth).
3. Conservative estimates would peg the number of people killed under uncle Joe at roughly 20 million.
So in essence, you have no qualms about tagging yourself with the symbol of a regime responsible for the slaughter of <b>twenty million</b> of its own people.
Further, the board administrators are <i>fine</i> with it, even though I'm sure they'd come down on anyone with a swastika .sig like a ton of bricks. I've just never been able to wrap my head around this particular double standard. Well, other than we make a big deal out of the holocaust (and justly so), but not out of what went down behind the iron curtain.