Socialism the problem? Seriously?

[Guest Osaka Sun]

I'm laughing at any bullheaded person from the United States (I'm looking at you, Saffre) who believes that government intervention is clearly the problem in any (and every) economic situation. Because it's eeeevil. Eeeeevil.

 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-61YBSCXRg]YouTube - ‪Income Inequality Ignorance‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XPrQc2pyQQ]YouTube - ‪Shocking Graph: U.S. Income Inequality‬‏[/ame]

http://blogs.alternet.org/grantlawrence/2010/04/10/mind-blowing-american-wealth-disparity-the-bottom-50-have-comparatively-nothing/

 

Yes, the top 1% of wage earners own THIRTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL WEALTH. Yay Reaganomics! Yay laissez-faire capitalism! Explain to me, how is that liberty? And how is the $14 trillion debt and crappy economy going over there?

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk]YouTube - ‪INSIDE JOB Official Trailer in HD!‬‏[/ame]

 

Union Membership:

United States - 11%

Canada - 29.5%

Denmark (Nordic Model) - 67.6%

 

Major Deregulations:

Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980)

Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act (1982)

Repeal of Glass-Stegal Act via Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999)

 

Universal Health Care:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NevFL1rGeew]YouTube - ‪Health Care Reform Thought Bubble‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIQvhG3SBDI]YouTube - ‪Dennis Kucinich Confronts MD Who Claimed Canadian Health Care Was Worse That The US's‬‏[/ame]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html (top systems are public)

 

46.3 million Americans uninsured. Yay freedom! And voila,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

 

"The financial crisis was not widely predicted by mainstream economists."

 

 

IN ICELAND:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-2010_Icelandic_financial_crisis

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X35R_3ZN-t8]YouTube - ‪The financial crash in Iceland in 6 minutes according to ABC´s 20/20.‬‏[/ame]

 

IN IRELAND:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo]YouTube - ‪An Irishman abroad tells it like it is !! :-)‬‏[/ame]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2011_Irish_financial_crisis

 

Here in Canada, we had over a decade of balanced budgets with a Liberal government, after conservatism/classical liberalism in the 80s (see: Brian Mulroney) doubled our national debt from $200 billion to over $500 billlion. Now we have little Stephie Harper, who is lowering every single tariff known in our country in hopes of increased private investment, while statistical evidence shows it's doing nothing. Deficits are skyrocketing, forcing cuts to government programs, while the middle class is slowly beginning to shrink.

 

Yes, we know that Spain bloody hell spent too much. But making government "small," allowing corporate power to reign is just as freaking dangerous. There has to be a balance (aka rules). But no, corporations are gooooood. They're so perfect.

 

Remember what Mussolini and Hitler did first as they reigned into power (*hint* unions were smashed and businesses were deemed paramount). The last (and well, only) political groups to step up to fascism in Italy and Germany started with an "s" and ended with an "m." What does that spell? ;)

[LoryABjerre]

and although the economy will become even worse. when multi-national (bosses) take much money for themselves. not respect the nature or the health of citizens (food trade)

you build more polluting machines to replace humans beings and destabilized the physical and mental health of every honest worker because they have not work, or not work as machines and because you do not create jobs and destabilizes all a economy countries.

 

balance is capitalism and advance in own country's economy even more importante.

[Saffire]

Yes, the top 1% of wage earners own THIRTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL WEALTH. Yay Reaganomics! Yay laissez-faire capitalism! Explain to me, how is that liberty? And how is the $14 trillion debt and crappy economy going over there?

 

First, you explain to me how a country with a monopoly banking cartel (the Federal Reserve) that prints and fixes the price of money (via the bond market and interest rates) is "laissez-faire".

 

If you can find a price that is too high, I can show you the government intervention that caused it. Try me.

 

Second, Denmark and Canada have more-free markets than America:

 

http://www.heritage.org/index/

 

Denmark places at #8 and the US places at #9. Canada is #6. So poof, there goes your critique of capitalism.

 

Yes, we know that Spain bloody hell spent too much. But making government "small," allowing corporate power to reign is just as freaking dangerous. There has to be a balance (aka rules). But no, corporations are gooooood. They're so perfect.

 

No group of humans is perfect. Not even the monopoly security corporations you refer to as "governments". At least I support the peoples' ability to choose.

[Saffire]

balance is capitalism and advance in own country's economy even more importante.

 

Most people have this idea that a certain golden harmony can be struck between government intervention and freedom. What I'm saying is, it's impossible. All government interference in markets destroys the price-signals that allocate scarce resources based on consumer demand.

 

It's either the market, or government. There is no third way.

 

EDIT:

 

A lot of people attribute massive wealth concentration and corporations with capitalism. These things are not the result of free markets. Take a look at the Forbes 400 richest people. You'll see most of them made their money by using government to shut out their competitors. Lobbyists for big corporations regularly work to have legislation passed that ADDS regulations to their industry. Why? To make it harder for the little guy to start a competitor. Trademarks, patents, and various other government-enforced monopolies make competition impossible in many sectors, too.

 

Corporations aren't a product of the free market. They are unaccountable legal constructs created by governments to more-efficiently tax the people via withholding.

 

In a truly competitive free market, you would still have rich people - but they wouldn't be nearly as rich as they are today. Wealth would be more spread out. You wouldn't have a fiat currency that's constantly being printed, so the poor would be able to save their money without fear of prices rising in the future due to inflation. You wouldn't have endless wars, or wasteful government spending. You wouldn't have millions of peaceful people locked up in government jails for smoking a plant or taking recreational drugs. Human potential could be unlocked, and productivity would skyrocket.

[Cobalt]

Way to make a completely unnecessary thread when you could have just posted this in response to whatever thread you were in. It wouldn't have been off-topic. Ye just want to drama queen and get attention, gah!

 

The last (and well, only) political groups to step up to fascism in Italy and Germany started with an "s" and ended with an "m." What does that spell? ;)

 

Sam

Sum

S&M

Spam

Swim

Siam

Sham

Shun

Slim

Scram

Snot

 

Am I close ???

[Saffire]

Oh Cobalt, I love this stuff! Don't get mad.

 

As for those socialists stepping up to the fascists:

 

NAZI = The National Socialist German Workers' Party

 

Whoops.

[the_gloaming09]

You make all good points Saffire. I agree that a lot of it is governments problem in so many areas trying to suppress peoples lifestyles and true potentials.

 

I mean you can even see that pretty much anything the government touches turns to shit in the end, because they have too much on their plate and cannot fully control everything at once.

 

So I do think that the freer the market the better it is for competition.

 

 

 

However (now I may be wrong, because I haven't studied it so in depth), but isn't the main reason for the housing market to bubble and collapse was because banks were given permission (I think under the Clinton Admin.) to basically hand out loans to people that could not pay them? So in that sense do you think that there should be regulation or any kind of regulation of that sort?

[Saffire]

That's part of the reason, yes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two government loan agencies that were making it easy for anyone to get a mortgage (and still do).

 

This is normally considered a good thing (after all, easy loans is great for people to buy houses!). But, you have to understand why interest rates exist in the first place. An interest rate is the "price" having money now, rather than later. Everybody has a different "time preference" - some people really need money today (so they'd be willing to pay a high interest rate), and some people don't care so much about buying the newest iPad or whatever (so they'll only borrow at low interest).

 

An economy is a yin & yang balance between production (savers) and consumption (borrowers).

 

In a free market, these two groups of people balance each other out. Think about supply and demand. When the supply of loanable funds increases (because a lot of people are saving), the "price" of borrowing money (interest rate) falls. It makes sense.

 

Similarly, the opposite is true: when everyone is borrowing money, the supply of loanable funds shrinks. So interest rates naturally rise (just like the price of anything else that's scarce). Higher interest rates reward savers.

 

What the government has been doing is to artificially lower interest rates by printing money (they call it "quantitative easing" and some other technical mumbo jumbo). The extra printed money increases the supply of loanable funds, which reduces interest rates. The problem is, it's fake savings. The market is demanding higher rates so people stop consuming so much and focus more on producing. This is how a "bubble" is formed. We grow accustomed to the boom period and think that's a "normal" economy.

 

Then, when production can no longer keep up with consumption, you get a recession/depression. This is the period where the economy is trying to heal itself, by eliminating debts and shifting capital away from the borrowers and back to the savers. The government is currently pumping out as much extra money as possible, in order to delay the inevitable recession. But that'll only make it worse in the end.

 

So what I've given you is a rundown of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABC).

 

The point is, we don't need regulation. What we need is a stable currency without credit expansion. That will naturally make banks afraid to lend money to untrustworthy borrowers.

 

Second, ask yourself this question: Why are falling home prices a bad thing? I thought the politicians used to talk about everyone owning a home, and it being the "American Dream"! ;)

 

If they really cared about us, wouldn't they want everyone to own a house? Shouldn't prices fall further?

[the_gloaming09]

I mean falling prices isn't such a bad thing, but it seems that people want to be able to resell their homes and make a profit.

 

The thing that I personally don't understand with people buying homes is why would you get a loan for a house when you cannot afford it? Same goes with a credit card. I mean I can understand why people do it because they want want want, but personally I hate to buy anything that I know I cannot afford.

 

So then you mentioned that printing more money only keeps the inevitable of a recession. So with things so bad such an unemployment and rising prices of things, how exactly do you see things getting better? Or what do you think the solution might be (since it seems you know alot about economics)

[Guest Osaka Sun]

In theory, yes fascism is similar to socialism. In reality?

 

"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." - Hitler

 

It essentially used any system known to man, while destroying unions in the name of Social Darwinism and favouring big business. Socialists normally puke when they hear that.

 

You're suggesting a Bioshock-esque libertarianism. In reality, when has it ever worked on a national scale? Every nation has a version of a Federal Reserve (central bank), it's just that yours, I'll agree with you on that, is highly corrupt. But every time the "free market" has been suggested,

The greed factor comes in. And yes, up to the point that they lobby to control governments to continue deregulating. Every single time someone ensures laissez-faire capitalism, corporations always appear to kick everyone when they're down, as they say. The very corporations you "hate."

 

Also, please show me definite examples of regulation working against it's opposite means, to prevent monopolies. Because we got a crapload of it in Canada and no monopolies are clearly forming. And yes, we've got socialized health care and subsidized education to ensure the equal opportunity for one to succeed. And protect small businesses. Isn't it funny that it's more "free" than the US?

 

And it's a middle ground, ironically. We've got it to work.

 

Randians don't want that opportunity. Because in the end, it's power. Power at all costs. Also, who favoured individualism? Hitler loved it just as much as you do.

[Saffire]

So then you mentioned that printing more money only keeps the inevitable of a recession. So with things so bad such an unemployment and rising prices of things, how exactly do you see things getting better? Or what do you think the solution might be (since it seems you know alot about economics)

 

The solution is remarkably simple. If you're President, you can peg the dollar to gold.

 

Think of a dollar as being like a measurement. In the same sense 1 yard = 3 feet, 1 dollar = 0.002 ounces of pure gold. What this does is hold the money supply stable, allowing the market to set interest rates naturally.

 

Initially it will cause the value of the dollar to go higher (so people with savings will be richer, and people with debts will either default or have more to pay off). Interest rates will also go higher, to 10 or 15%.

 

The sudden shift will make people work harder, save more, and pay off their debts as quickly as possible. Basically it'll increase productivity and decrease consumption. So it'll hurt, no doubt about it. But you know who it'll hurt the most? Hint: Who's got the most debt of all? $14.3 trillion of it... ;)

 

Now you can see why this solution will never happen.

 

What's more likely to happen is a gradual increase in inflation and unemployment, until you start to see some real angry protesters. Maybe a few riots. Police will use acoustic weapons and tear gas. Maybe even microwave guns and beanbags. Gas prices will go higher and higher. Food will empty off grocery store shelves as people see the inflation and want to "lock in" the current price by buying a few months' worth now. You'll see a lot of dramatic idiots like Glenn Beck talk on TV about price controls and wage fixes, and how evil those damn Chinese people are.

[Darlene_Ihnfsa]

Yes, we know that Spain bloody hell spent too much. But making government "small," allowing corporate power to reign is just as freaking dangerous. There has to be a balance (aka rules). But no, corporations are gooooood. They're so perfect.

so, you think you know what happened in Spain?

how would you had avoided it?

how would you solve it?

[the_gloaming09]

The solution is remarkably simple. If you're President, you can peg the dollar to gold.

 

Think of a dollar as being like a measurement. In the same sense 1 yard = 3 feet, 1 dollar = 0.002 ounces of pure gold. What this does is hold the money supply stable, allowing the market to set interest rates naturally.

 

Initially it will cause the value of the dollar to go higher (so people with savings will be richer, and people with debts will either default or have more to pay off). Interest rates will also go higher, to 10 or 15%.

 

The sudden shift will make people work harder, save more, and pay off their debts as quickly as possible. Basically it'll increase productivity and decrease consumption. So it'll hurt, no doubt about it. But you know who it'll hurt the most? Hint: Who's got the most debt of all? $14.3 trillion of it... ;)

 

Now you can see why this solution will never happen.

 

What's more likely to happen is a gradual increase in inflation and unemployment, until you start to see some real angry protesters. Maybe a few riots. Police will use acoustic weapons and tear gas. Maybe even microwave guns and beanbags. Gas prices will go higher and higher. Food will empty off grocery store shelves as people see the inflation and want to "lock in" the current price by buying a few months' worth now. You'll see a lot of dramatic idiots like Glenn Beck talk on TV about price controls and wage fixes, and how evil those damn Chinese people are.

yeah that won't happen. It's funny because people are always for change, but when it's a big change they don't want it. We're creatures that get used to the same things over and over. But I hope at least from what you're describing it won't lead to riots like that. It almost sounds a lot like what German went through before WWII.

 

At the same time do you then think that it was wrong to try and help out to bail out the banks? When in fact there's a good chance it may have made things worse by bank by bank failing.

[Guest Osaka Sun]

The solution is remarkably simple. If you're President, you can peg the dollar to gold.

 

Think of a dollar as being like a measurement. In the same sense 1 yard = 3 feet, 1 dollar = 0.002 ounces of pure gold. What this does is hold the money supply stable, allowing the market to set interest rates naturally.

 

Initially it will cause the value of the dollar to go higher (so people with savings will be richer, and people with debts will either default or have more to pay off). Interest rates will also go higher, to 10 or 15%.

 

The sudden shift will make people work harder, save more, and pay off their debts as quickly as possible. Basically it'll increase productivity and decrease consumption. So it'll hurt, no doubt about it. But you know who it'll hurt the most? Hint: Who's got the most debt of all? $14.3 trillion of it... ;)

 

Now you can see why this solution will never happen.

 

What's more likely to happen is a gradual increase in inflation and unemployment, until you start to see some real angry protesters. Maybe a few riots. Police will use acoustic weapons and tear gas. Maybe even microwave guns and beanbags. Gas prices will go higher and higher. Food will empty off grocery store shelves as people see the inflation and want to "lock in" the current price by buying a few months' worth now. You'll see a lot of dramatic idiots like Glenn Beck talk on TV about price controls and wage fixes, and how evil those damn Chinese people are.

 

You're advocating the gold standard.

 

What are you, insane? There's a reason why it failed in the 30s.

[Saffire]

In theory, yes fascism is similar to socialism. In reality?

 

"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." - Hitler

 

It essentially used any system known to man, while destroying unions in the name of Social Darwinism and favouring big business. Socialists normally puke when they hear that.

 

You're suggesting a Bioshock-esque libertarianism. In reality, when has it ever worked on a national scale? Every nation has a version of a Federal Reserve (central bank), it's just that yours, I'll agree with you on that, is highly corrupt. But every time the "free market" has been suggested,

The greed factor comes in. And yes, up to the point that they lobby to control governments to continue deregulating. Every single time someone ensures laissez-faire capitalism, corporations always appear to kick everyone when they're down, as they say. The very corporations you "hate."

 

Also, please show me definite examples of regulation working against it's opposite means, to prevent monopolies. Because we got a crapload of it in Canada and no monopolies are clearly forming. And yes, we've got socialized health care and subsidized education to ensure the equal opportunity for one to succeed. And protect small businesses. Isn't it funny that it's more "free" than the US?

 

And it's a middle ground, ironically. We've got it to work.

 

Randians don't want that opportunity. Because in the end, it's power. Power at all costs. Also, who favoured individualism? Hitler loved it just as much as you do.

 

 

You're totally misunderstanding the effects of voluntary exchange. Everything you're saying is just government propaganda, but I'll try to respond to each point you made.

 

1. You're confusing me with a conservative. I'm not against unions, as long as they're voluntary. I think individuals have a right to band together to do things. I'm just against non-voluntary unions, which is what socialists support.

 

2. How would poor people survive in a situation of "social Darwinism"? How do they survive today? The vast majority of people agree that it's good to give money to the poor, and help them out. Why would they stop doing this without socialism? Nobody would starve. There's always some kind hearted person who's willing to help people out. I think it's safe to say more people starved in Mao's China (a socialist experiment) than ever starved in a free market.

 

3. When has it ever worked? It works all the time. Read some history. You must think progress comes from government.

 

4. Greed. Are the people in government not greedy? Look who rakes in trillions every year! And they do it with threats of force against peaceful people. At least corporations trade with you.

 

5. No monopolies in Canada? Your healthcare system is monopolized. I'm sure a lot of your ISP's are, too.

 

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

 

 

 

6. Corporations kick people when they're down? Like when?

 

7. Middle ground? You got it to work? Canada isn't honky dory now. Your healthcare system is going broke. Give it time, it'll happen.

 

8. Hitler hated individualism, are you kidding me? He wrote in Mein Kampf against states' rights. He wanted to centralize power as much as he could.

 

9. I'm not a Randian, I'm more of a Rothbardian anarchist. Rand believed in some government.

[Saffire]

You're advocating the gold standard.

 

What are you, insane? There's a reason why it failed in the 30s.

 

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/agdtable1.pdf

 

Here's a chart showing the expansion of the money supply in the US from 1921 to 1929. It nearly doubled.

[Saffire]

 

At the same time do you then think that it was wrong to try and help out to bail out the banks? When in fact there's a good chance it may have made things worse by bank by bank failing.

 

Yes, bailing out the banks was a bad thing to do.

 

Allowing the banks to fail wouldn't have been the end of the world like they want you to believe. When a company (any company) goes bankrupt, what happens is simply a transfer of its assets to new management. It doesn't explode and fall into a chasm in the ground, lol.

 

So the only people who would have suffered would be the upper-management of the banks, along with the shareholders. (ie Richest guys)

 

All the debts/loans/etc of the banks would have continued to exist, but they would have been reassessed to discover their true value.

 

By bailing them out, it's like a child covering her ears and saying "nanananan I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It doesn't make the debts go away, they still exist.

 

The whole point of bankrupty and recession isn't to punish people. It's just to transfer (as quickly as possible) the means of production (capital) to the smart people who don't make mistakes. So a recession can either be very fast and short (like ripping off a bandaid all at once) or slow and painful (like what we're currently going through with government intervention).

[chuck kottke]

I think what's the matter is some shift that occurred in the media, and how it affects people's patterns of behavior. Not all, but a majority of people are affected by the use of savvy marketing, and what that spells is trouble when it comes to long-term planning and true representative governance.

When those who have amassed the most wealth (and have gotten it through less than scrupulous means) can buy the ads and convince citizens of things that are not true, and do so effectively, this sets up a race to the bottom. All others must either follow suit or concede losses in the election cycles.

So any real solution based on reasoned logic falls short of happening when we allow money to buy elections. If politicians can placate enough people by allowing things to go on as they have, allow so-called banks to snooker in citizens to take out risky loans that are then tossed onto the market as AAA rated investments, they thus gain both money into their ad coffers, and voters who see things as only getting better. But when the drug wears off, the economy falters, and then these finely-crafted shark loans begin to take their toll on average citizens, we see the whole global economy shake violently.

So yes, in the simple sense all is well with markets, but in the larger context, things are not so simple. I firmly believe we have the right to honest candidate races and equal access for all candidates to the media, and this must come above the perception that money is free speech & above the notion that in election matters one can spend unlimited amounts of money. Markets work best when they are properly governed to keep things on the up-and-up. This can only happen if we choose to elect people who all start on equal footing, and the contest is between better ideas and an ability to work with others constructively for the benefit of the citizenry. Letting money buy elections is to me the key problem - since it perpetuates a multitude of destructive behaviors in society, and ultimately reduces the human potential of any nation.

In defense of Socialism, it is an instrument through which we maintain our social fabric - we hold certain values in the aggregate, and these things we hold in common require our protection and nurturing. Motivation through markets is not the only means through which citizens are productively motivated - a well designed merit based system is another way. Government institutions sometimes appear to be inefficient but in reality are not necessarily as they may be portrayed. The U.S. postal service does an excellent job and the motivation is one more of devotion to service, following the golden rule, merit for work done well, and unbiased evaluations. Social security is another fine example of what works well from Socialism. Without it, we would be in dire straits every time there was a severe downturn in the markets; it is a safety net where raw market behaviors would otherwise turn retirees into peasants if things go awry.

Ah, if only that were true - allowing the banks to fail would have allowed a cascade of market crashes to occur, as the Bear doesn't react based on rational thinking. How the exchange market got so puffy isn't a classical bubble - it's so much more than that. It has a lot to do with deregulation and lack of transparent oversight by governing bodies charged with the mission of keeping things on the up-and-up, and adequately funded to do so.

Imagine a sporting event where the coaches were allowed to buy off the referees, change the rules to change the scores, limit what the referees could see, and short-change the fans after offering them a great bargain on the tickets. Of course the referees would have to bought off, as well as the governing boards of directors overseeing the leagues, etc. When it reaches a point of ridiculousness and the sham falls apart, what went wrong? Are checks and balances not essential, and are they not social in nature?

The social contract represents the fabric of society.

[Guest Osaka Sun]

You're totally misunderstanding the effects of voluntary exchange. Everything you're saying is just government propaganda, but I'll try to respond to each point you made.

 

1. You're confusing me with a conservative. I'm not against unions, as long as they're voluntary. I think individuals have a right to band together to do things. I'm just against non-voluntary unions, which is what socialists support.

 

2. How would poor people survive in a situation of "social Darwinism"? How do they survive today? The vast majority of people agree that it's good to give money to the poor, and help them out. Why would they stop doing this without socialism? Nobody would starve. There's always some kind hearted person who's willing to help people out. I think it's safe to say more people starved in Mao's China (a socialist experiment) than ever starved in a free market.

 

3. When has it ever worked? It works all the time. Read some history. You must think progress comes from government.

 

4. Greed. Are the people in government not greedy? Look who rakes in trillions every year! And they do it with threats of force against peaceful people. At least corporations trade with you.

 

5. No monopolies in Canada? Your healthcare system is monopolized. I'm sure a lot of your ISP's are, too.

 

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

 

 

 

6. Corporations kick people when they're down? Like when?

 

7. Middle ground? You got it to work? Canada isn't honky dory now. Your healthcare system is going broke. Give it time, it'll happen.

 

8. Hitler hated individualism, are you kidding me? He wrote in Mein Kampf against states' rights. He wanted to centralize power as much as he could.

 

9. I'm not a Randian, I'm more of a Rothbardian anarchist. Rand believed in some government.

 

 

1. I consider myself a social liberal, or moderate social democrat. That means total personal freedom but moderate government involvement to achieve economic opportunity as well as some sort of economic equality. Not the Nordic Model, but close. And the Nordic Model is relatively fine as it is.

 

Most libertarians advocate destroying unions, and the practice has spread to voluntary ones as well. It's happened since the Reagan era, and wages have gone down while top incomes have skyrocketed.

 

2. You must forget the Great Depression. Or probably believe that the entirety of the recession was caused by Fannie Mae. Right?

 

3. You don't consider the capacity for human greed. That's the ONE thing I can't understand with classical economics. I'm just asking for rules, that most successful economies apply yet the United States doesn't.

 

5. Health care is 70% publically funded, and 30% private here. Most economists here advocate more government solutions to cost issues. And the ISPs here are mismanaged by the CRTC, which should be regulating, but isn't.

 

6. Oh please, don't make me go all BP on you. Or Wall Mart. I can name many.

 

7. It's going "broke" because we've decreased the federal transfers for it to the provinces to solve debt problems. All while decreasing taxes on large incomes and big business. And do I have to remind you again that the top 20 health care systems are universal, as well as government funded?

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-spur-growth-analysis-reveals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/

 

Also, watch as our "Greatest Canadian" kicks your ass.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oUInTUlAM]YouTube - ‪Tommy Douglas on Future of Medicare (1983)‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWoM7whz-sc]YouTube - ‪Tommy Douglas - Medicare February 2, 1979‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YkHtqnfJ00]YouTube - ‪RetroBites: Tommy Douglas (1976)‬‏[/ame]

 

8. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

 

9. Again, anarchy requires people to be rational. Is that reality? NO country uses the gold standard. Not even Hong Kong, the so-called non-interventionist paradise.

 

And government propaganda? Nice insult. We have less of you idiots here, and our economy escaped the recession like it never existed. But we had to use Kenyesianism, like it or not.

 

Pure socialism is just as dangerous as unfettered capitalism. If unfettered capitalism was the answer, there'd be no need for this discussion. We'd be all living in your libertarian dream. But we're not. It's not that simple. Even University of Chicago Friedmanites are retracting their statements, saying "nooo, we didn't advocate deregulation," while Friedman was on Reagan's main panel of economists.

[chuck kottke]

2. On the Great Depression. If generosity were so perfect, perhaps things would be fine. But such was not the case - vast areas of cities and suburbs were thrown into unemployment, and with no safety net, these people were made instantly dirt poor. Half of the population had work, but it was geographically imbalanced, and the generosity wasn't there as you describe. What happened (as family stories related to me I recall) was government relief wagons were sent about neighborhoods delivering basic commodities such as flour and potatoes. People had to scrounge along rail road tracks and in dumps for fuel to heat their homes and to cook meals with. Homes were being foreclosed on, families were thrown out into the streets, or were taken in by families already living in cramped houses and apartments. All at a time when the means of production and the raw materials were in abundant supply.

What bothers me as well is neglect of this thing called individual dignity; all people take pride in their ability to provide for themselves and their family. Having that taken away on a mass scale, and having to beg from others is an unhealthy situation, for it reduces good men and women to positions of serfs, and creates in the minds of the haves an attitude of superiority and aloofness, to which the John Pierpont Morgan's showed no restrain in acting as the arrogant market bosses in their day. Markets allow for such great imbalances that market forces alone diminish the greater social good unless they are regulated and there is a minimum standard for income, and support to catch people when they fall. To promote the growth of the middle class is to promote healthy democracies.

[Guest Osaka Sun]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-o8MVvQd7w]YouTube - ‪THE CORPORATION [20/23] Hostile Takeover‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw]YouTube - ‪THE CORPORATION [17/23] Unsettling Accounts‬‏[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P4uvC2BFdU]YouTube - ‪THE CORPORATION [21/23] Democracy Ltd.‬‏[/ame]

 

If capitalism was so perfect, this wouldn't happen.

 

Again, I'm not advocating communism, one of my first high school papers was when politics shifts to the far-left and the far-right, the line between them blurs, simply because communism requires people to be rational as well. The problem is you've been conditioned to believe that laissez-faire is infallible and that individuals will not seek more power than necessary. You probably think that regulating chemicals in children's toys forms some kind of monopoly as well?

 

The government exists to protect the people, first and formost. If that doesn't happen, it's not a democracy.

[Saffire]

I'll respond to all these points later today, when I'm back home. But the root of all this misunderstanding is summed up in this article of faith:

 

The government exists to protect the people, first and formost.

 

Every argument that you could possibly devise in defense of government can be used in defense of monopoly, because governments are monopolies.

[Guest Osaka Sun]

I'll respond to all these points later today, when I'm back home. But the root of all this misunderstanding is summed up in this article of faith:

 

 

 

Every argument that you could possibly devise in defense of government can be used in defense of monopoly, because governments are monopolies.

 

:facepalm:

 

This is the last post I'm making here. If you truly think that all government is evil, go get the courage to walk out of your little hole and travel to Canada, any Scandinavian country, just anywhere outside the United States. We'll be proud to take you in. And you'll have a job that will ensure you'll have a decent, free life.

 

Just don't cry out in fear about "the goddamn government" when you get life-saving treatment that won't bankrupt you.

 

Your lack of human rights and compassion sickens me.

[Saffire]

You'll be happy to know I plan on moving to Denmark!

 

Just because I'm against all government in principle doesn't mean I can't identify governments and cultures I think offer a superior quality of life.

 

Denmark is much better than Canada, anyway. ;)

 

Also, where do "rights" come from? God?

 

And do you have compassion for the people getting beaten with nightsticks in Spain and Greece? How about the millions imprisoned around the world for nonviolent crimes? Or the millions killed in unnecessary wars? If you want to talk about compassion, I've got all day.

[NumbersGirl]

Saffire for President *

 

 

* whenever he reaches age 35