Printable View
But presumably you don't think it a bad thing that the military occupations continue when 70% of the people want them ended. (Including a lot of people who voted for Obama on a promise to bring the troops home.)Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Outside of such wild cases as the American frontier and Pol Pot's Cambodia, there has never been a purely capitalist or purely socialist economy. And those cases didn't last long and only survived by drawing on the mixed economies beyond their borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
The US has never been as purely capitalist as it likes to claim, any more than China is as purely socialist as it pretends. All successful economies are a mix of state provision and private enterprise: the argument is over the best balance, which depends on the circumstances and can't be decided by pure theory or ideology.
Most economists agree that our present troubles come from the US and its client economies tilting way too far on the side of unregulated capitalism, and needing a good dose of state control to right the balance. There have been other times when economies have failed through too much socialism (Wilson's UK is an arguable example), but we are very far from that today.
And many people are still angry with him over that as well. Obama is great at slight-of-hand and getting people (the media, actually) to focus on one thing while he's doing another. So...he took the focus off bringing home the troops and placed it upon the "Stimulus Package". When that didn't really pan out the way it was intended - because let's face it, things have gotten worse - he took the focus off that and concentrated on the Health Care Bill regardless of everything else that needed his attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
BTW - Just because mainstream media doesn't report the anger of the voters in regards to any given "Obama-ism" doesn't mean it isn't there. I highly anyone in another country can know exactly how frustrated and irritated most Americans are with almost ALL of Obama's moves so far unless they live here. However, it's starting to be shown in the polls.
It actually does matter. He stated five days before he was elected that "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathryn Blackthorne
Into what?
Why does it need to be "transformed"?
Frustration over his breaking of campaign promises and many of the other moves he has made since in office however in reality has only a small part to do with his closeted socialist standing or expressed political views so much as his actual deeds in comparrison to unmet public expectations.
Kinda like the anticipation of a long awaited movie being far greater than the movie itself.
Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.
Most people who rise to power have the same wishes or wish to apear too.
Now that he is in power however the reality that said power is actualy quite limited (even when one has a majority in both houses and the high court behind them (or soon to be).
Additonally, with things like the war to control the rescources of the middle east for global corperate masters (who are really in charge), shrouded under the viel of Rome protecting its empire from the barbarians at the gates er oh Im sorry I mean the USA and the rest of the free world working as equals to stop the threat of terrorism...(though it could be a two birds with one stone thing I suppose) he has pretty much followed the play book drawn up for him by other more knowledgable individuals before him such as Rumsfield and Chenney that was left conviently in place amongst all the executive branches for defence and intell staff/agencies from which he was briefed as to the real deal when he took office. Something Ive been told is a wake up call like no other for a new president ellect.
After all we cant have the newly elected kid on the block "figure head" striking out into new ground where it really matters to the real powers behind the throne now can we?
When you look at what he has done conserning health care and imigration and other areas along with the war and foriegn relations you start to see what kind of short leash the corperate powers that be have their new man in washington on.
And thats got very little to do with political orientations of theoretical dogmas, so much as the hard realities of supply, demand, and economic control.
Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.
True. But the thing he wants to "fix" is the Constitution, and by changing that, he changes America. He freely admits that he sought out the Marxists and radicals while in college. Now he is in a position to "create" the kind of world he wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Not necessarily. Free market capitalism relies upon the fellow man. You get by on your merits and quality of your goods in a free market capitalist society. In a socialist society, much of what you rely upon for living is "purchased" from the government or doled out by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.
Sorry, I have to disagree. In a free market, you purchase from a retailer or merchant and in turn, that merchant or retailer spends the money they receive and the market grows and prospers. If they provide poor service or the quality of product is poor, their business suffers as a result and the market ebbs and flows naturally. In socialism, when the government is full of entitlement programs and provides and/or sells much of what the "consumer" needs, the money does not flow through the market, nor is there any consequence to the government for poor service or a poor quality product. It's almost a one-way street. Remember the lines for food in Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Besides, in a barter system you exchange something of value for something that you view to be of equal value. The government can demand whatever value (cost) they want for whatever the deem to bestow upon their citizens.
And in those cases that you so eloquently pointed out: a service provider fails to provide sufficently for the demand (government controled or otherwise)...those doing the demanding go elsewhere (as they did to the blackmarket in russia)....hence its still econmoics 101 hard at work.
Its the difference between theory and reality.
Here's an unbiased opinion posted by a political scientist. I quite enjoyed reading it.
You get by if you have capital and you fail if you don't. Merit? Quality? Don't make me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
And Michael Martine's activities mark him out as a capitalist, not as an "unbiased political scientist".
Since the question was about socialist countries I will I will ignore all comments regarding the current and preceding US administrations. That is rightfully a completely different subject.
A current list of socialist countries contains 27 that were formerly socialist. obviously they have all failed!
As to currently socialist there appear to be none. A listing contains five but four of the five are also identified as communist. Since communism is the result of a failed socialist state QED socialist states have failed. The single state listed as socialist and not communist is North Korea. It is, or should be clear, to most everyone that there is no way that North Korea can be listed among the successful states.
Even your own words; "(M)ost European nations, at one time or another.", support the contention that socialism fails!
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
The simple definition of socialism is "state ownership of industry" such has not been the case in modern nation states.
Further social programs in a capitalist state does not make the country socialist.
Further I would have to take the position that a pure system of politics, which is likely to never occur, is also like not a good thing. However, a system that rewards the person for effort is immeasurably better than one that tries to make everyone the same regardless of effort. With no reward for effort all you produce is mediocrity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Us politicians only campaign to the middle. Once in office they do damn well as they please. Like and of the landed gentry of the middle ages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
the US electorate is composed of 15% liberal, 29% moderates, 34% conservative, and most dangerous of all 16% progressive.
This makes the split 31 - 34. Therefore campaigns are directed at, and rest on the shoulders of the 29% moderate. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/halpin-teixeria-progressive-study/)
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathryn Blackthorne
It matters because such a progrom would destroy the USA!
"Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?"
Doing the
right thing Should not
be involved Unsure
% % %
4/14-19/10 56 36 8
"Do you think eliminating the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for or not?"
Is
worthwhile Is not
worthwhile Unsure
% % %
4/14-19/10 61 31 8
(http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm)
The most recent data I can find that includes Iraq is a war on terror poll. This poll has 42% say we are winning, 25% - losing, and 26% think it is a draw.(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update)
Hence I can not find support for you claim!
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Nothing closeted about it! He has been very clear in his beliefs.
Calling him socialist is actually being nice. There is evidence that he is more progressive than socialist. And as hard as it may be to believe they are worse than socialists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
No they are not!
In a capitalist system I make a product. I take the risk of putting my resources into the product. I make a good product and a perceived good price and I succeed.
In a socialist system the government makes all the products. The is no reward or incentive for me to improve or do a better job. Further if the product is shoddy or perceived of as too expensive (i.e. poor value) I have no choice. There is only one source!
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
Just look at the "cost" of your drivers license! In my state at least it is only supposed to cost what it costs the state to produce it for me. I even have to pay an extra fee to see the person at the counter, and a "convenience" fee to do it online.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
You realize that the "black market" in a socialist system is capitalism. Capitalism that exists because the socialist system fails the customer!
One should realize that in socialism the government doesnt nessesarally own everything only some things...just like here in the USA.
The point I am making is one of the reality of economic preceptions: IE every economic system to date in human history has basically worked the same in the end regardless of who owned what portions of production and or suppy and or consumption/demand.
Necessity is ultimately unescapable as the ocean in which the economic boat is driven regardless of who is at the helm.
Weather the village cron is assisting in midwifery for the exchange of a couple chickens or out of the goodness of her heart knowing someday the mother will perhaps return the favor, or by the direction of the king whom she submits to for what land he grants her to live upon and ply her trade for food...the laws of equivelant exchange still prevail.
Since you and the rest of Obama's detractors have been equating "socialist" with "communist" from the start (otherwise you wouldn't be using it as an insult), it's a bit late to move the goalposts and exclude communist states from the dicussion. The more so since most of them call themselves socialist, so you are essentially arguing within your own private framework which you invented to give the answer you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
By any strict economic definition the USA has not been a purely capitalist state since the 1930s, at the very latest, so even before the current crisis it could by your strict terms be already described as a failed capitalist state. It is more realistic to recognise that all working economies contain elements of both private and public enterprise, and we define them as "socialist" or "capitalist" according to which predominates.
In most developed democracies the balance swings from capitalist to socialist and back according to political trends, which is why I said that most European countries have had socialist periods. In my lifetime the UK has seen a period of predominantly socialist organisation from the '50s to the '70s, when even the Conservatives shared the concensus that most important things should be done by the state, and a predominantly capitalist period from the election of the Thatcher government to the credit crisis, when the Labour Party accepted the concensus that most things were best done by private enterprise. In between the pendulum passed through a midpoint of fully mixed economy, and is swinging back to there now. This cycle is normal all over the democratic world, except in the US, where the swing to the left hits an ideological spanner and bounces back to the right ahead of time. It will take more than the first black President to unjam the works.
Ah, the "silent majority", I remember them from British politics. They don't vote, they don't show up on opinion polls, but we know they are there and only we speak up for them, so we're really in the majority even if we look like a handful of radicals.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
On the Left the equivalent imaginary constituency is called "the workers" or "the people".
A very sensible judgement, so why are you so panicked over the possibility that some very moderate social programs may be introduced to the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
I am only an ignorant foreigner, but I had the impression that one or two previous Administrations had amended the Constitution without being judged as subversives. Wasn't there someone who wanted to put in an amendment about gay marriage? Or was that another lie by the liberal media?Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
That's not what I am talking about. He stated, "The Constitution is fundamentally flawed"Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.
That's the same as saying it needs to be fixed. That the document we were founded on is incorrect.
Obviously it's not the "silent majority". The recent voting results show that.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
I don't want to live in a Communist country either. If I did, I would move to one.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
PERFECT! I couldn't figure out a way to explain that.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Then what is it in a so called capitalist country?
The drug trade is a prime example of a demand not being allowed by the state and yet a supply is developed for it and continues to exist unabated despite it. Same with protitution where thats illegal.
Black markets dont care if your a proponent of communisim, socialism, captitalism, or any other ideologies used to explain economic theory. When one devlopes to meet a supply for a demand it is simpley the current of economic nescesity doing what it does regardless of what you call it or how you try to control it.
You're speaking of illegal items/trade. LEGAL items are often on the black market in a socialist country.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
There's a huge difference between using an underground economy to purchase luxuries (non-medicinal drugs, prostitutes, etc.) and being forced to use that underground economy to purchase necessities (food, clean water, clothing) because the government can't supply sufficient quantities. This is the kind of thing that happened in the USSR. But only for the common people. The party elite always had enough, with their own private stores.
so·cial·ism
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
so·cial·ism
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Encyclopedia of Economics
* | Socialism
Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on.
Dictionary: so·cial·ism (West's Encyclopedia of American Law.
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Seems to me all the definitions place ownership and or control in the hands of the Government? Your example does not apply. Grant of land and freedom to set prices for a service are not equivalent to socialism. Ownership of land by the "Lord", their decision as to what a person's work will be, setting the price for that work, now that is socialism. Your eaxmple is actually capitalist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
First you do not know if I am in fact an "Obama detractor" Second I did not exclude anything. You are reading something into my response that is not there. While at the same time ignoring the substance and turning the focus away from the subject and on to me personally. I believe such an action is incorrect within the confines of this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Because there is nothing moderate about them!
Social Security is actually a moderate program and look how intrusive it has become.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Administrations do not "amend" the Constitution.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
And this is the most recent amendment!
"Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 5/7/1992
History
Article 1, Section 6 "
Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
May be puh-tey-tohes - puh-tah-tohes but the issue is actually called illegal. Black-market transactions typically occur as a way for participants to avoid government price controls or taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri