The political compass

[Master Jedi]

the only system that would work is me as ruler and all you as my loyal subjects/slaves

[Cantousent]

Spoken like a true Jedi.

[~NightWolf~]

the only system that would work is me as ruler and all you as my loyal subjects/slaves

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Such overactive imagination...

 

*snaps fingers*

 

...time for Alice to leave Wonderland...

[Master Jedi]

nothing like alica and wonderland

[taks]

Communism doesn't have government. You're thinking socialism. Communism is just Anarchy with laws. A communist revolution calls for a socialist transitionary period, which is where communism fails. Here it is the government's job to prepare the population for communism, but the government at that point is usually corrupt and is just trying to hold on to its power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

this is my point... communism starts out with a tyrannical government that says "once all is well, you won't need us any more!" but in reality, any fully socialist economic system will continually require a tyranny to keep it going. that's the "lie" that i was talking about.

 

taks

[taks]

Actually I have no problem with communism, if you could get rid of the inefficiency,

you can't. it's beyond inefficiency. socialist economies cannot adjust for demand.

 

I think it'd work far better than the virus emulating system the fake-democratic enviromentally damaging capitalist free market system the US has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh yeah, arguably the most prosperous system to ever exist, and even still it is not fully capitalist (the US). the more free an economy is, the more per capita income and the less incidence of poverty. just totally sucks for sure. you'll grow up, you'll learn... hopefully, for your own sake.

 

oh, and btw, a bit of a lesson for ya... capitalism refers to a socio-economic system... democracy refers to a form of government. the US is not a democracy nor has it ever claimed to be. read the freaking constitution for once in your short life. it's an eye opener, we're a republic. duh.

 

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

If the US is so great because of its more pure capitalist politics, then why is all the things necessary for living in the public sector such as publich healthcare etc. without a doubt better in countries with a more socialist system such as Canada or Sweden? Also, these countries have less homeless and outright empoverished people(in percentage or population)

 

And also capitalism isnt the reason why the US is the most powerful nation today, Haiti is also a very capitalist state yet they suffer from extreme poverty as most of the countries resources are being sold abroad by the very small group of people there with money.

 

capitalism only benefits the strong, those that already have power and money. those without are forced to sell their labour at whatever price the rich are willing to pay

 

 

..ok, now im ranting again but the main issue is that capitalism creates a society that isnt very good to live in for the majority of the population.

[draakh_kimera]

If the US is so great because of its more pure capitalist politics, then why is all the things necessary for living in the public sector such as publich healthcare etc. without a doubt better in countries with a more socialist system such as Canada or Sweden? Also, these countries have less homeless and outright empoverished people(in percentage or population)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, trying to remember economics now... Anyway, if I'm not mistaken this is due to the fact that healthcare and such is funded/subsidised (don't really now what the right word is) significantly much more in for example Sweden, than in the US. This in turn leads to a more efficient yet less expensive service for the consumer. As for less homeless and empoverished people, the Swedish state gives such people more economic help than the US. However, one also has to keep in mind that the government raises the money for the services through tax payers. Also, this way of "being nice" to the population raises the taxes on consumer goods, income, whatever, which is why living is so damn expensive in Sweden, and also why there is a lack of proffesional doctors, who get payed a lot more abroad.

 

capitalism only benefits the strong, those that already have power and money. those without are forced to sell their labour at whatever price the rich are willing to pay

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This depends on the degree of capitalism; all types of economic systems are bad if driven to an extreme. As Kaftan stated, capitalism will only benefit the economically strong if driven too far. The same can be said for socialsm/communism, though no one would really benefit, except the leading political figures...

 

..ok, now im ranting again but the main issue is that capitalism creates a society that isnt very good to live in for the majority of the population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That issue can be applied to anything. It's finding the "right" political way that would benefit the most people that is a real problem. In reality there is absolutely NO good socio-economic system as of yet. Sure, free markets will always have an economic advantage over command economies but the problem is that a lot more people will end up poor, whilst in command economies there is no real benefit to be made from working, as everyone is equal...

 

Anyway, my point with this was to try to clarify some very small aspects of politics and economics, though of course everyone is entitled to their own view and preference. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, I just wanted to state what I thought. Of course, don't quote me on any of this, economics is a subject I don't remember too much of "

[Kaftan Barlast]

I dont mean to be rude, but I think youre very much explaining the obvious.

 

 

 

Well, trying to remember economics now...  Anyway, if I'm not mistaken this is due to the fact that healthcare and such is funded/subsidised (don't really now what the right word is) significantly much more in for example Sweden, than in the US.  This in turn leads to a more efficient yet less expensive service for the consumer.  As for less homeless and empoverished people, the Swedish state gives such people more economic help than the US.  However, one also has to keep in mind that the government raises the money for the services through tax payers.  Also, this way of "being nice" to the population raises the taxes on consumer goods, income, whatever, which is why living is so damn expensive in Sweden, and also why there is a lack of proffesional doctors, who get payed a lot more abroad.

 

 

Yes, and Id rather pay high taxes and keep the public sector functioning(healthcare, schools etc.) than have everyone pay for these services out of their own pockets. And apparently its working because our society is both safer and IMO better to live in for everyone.

 

 

 

This depends on the degree of capitalism; all types of economic systems are bad if driven to an extreme.  As Kaftan stated, capitalism will only benefit the economically strong if driven too far.  The same can be said for socialsm/communism, though no one would really benefit, except the leading political figures...

 

 

Too much of anything is harmful, you cant argue with that. However, some thing are proven more harmful than others.

 

That issue can be applied to anything.  It's finding the "right" political way that would benefit the most people that is a real problem.  In reality there is absolutely NO good socio-economic system as of yet.  Sure, free markets will always have an economic advantage over command economies but the problem is that a lot more people will end up poor, whilst in command economies there is no real benefit to be made from working, as everyone is equal...

 

 

I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy is a lousy, difunctionate system but its the best we got. I would say the same for our version of social economics.

[draakh_kimera]

I dont mean to be rude, but I think youre very much explaining the obvious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No offense taken, but it's prolly not obvious to everybody, specially those who are ridiculously convinced that capitalism is the answer to everything *cough*TAKS*cough*

[Rosbjerg]

Kaftan and Draakh .. you both need to remember that the size of our countries makes our model possible .. do you realize how insanely expensive it would be for the US to have the same standards in social security, school, and health care as in our countries?

because of our small size and relative small (and generally extremely rich) population we can afford such high taxes and such expensive services.. we also apply a plan economy to control the flow of goods (as we would be flooded with cheaper goods otherwise).. which none of the bigger countries could do ..

 

which is why all of Scandinavia and other small European countries (Netherlands/Belgium etc) have adopted the same Social democratic policy .. and that's why bigger countries like France, Germany and the US need to be a little farther to the right to afford their current (more capitalistic) system ..

 

+

The right wing(s) in our countries are/is closer to the left wing in US ..

[Cantousent]

Capitalism might not be the answer to everything, but it's the best answer we have at the moment.

 

Take a country such as Sweden... I've liked most Swedes, but they tout their economy as suggesting that they've really been on the ball. This completely ingores the larger geo-political environment that has allowed them to enjoy their bounty.

 

There was a time when most Europeans would admit that the United States provides a defensive umbrella under which most nations can thrive. Sweden and Canada have simply not been forced to invest in defense to the degree that the United States does. Now, it seems many Europeans complain about the same military that stood watch on the borders of communism. It seems, more to the point, that many Europeans think communism is the answer. Do you really believe that the world would be better with a Soviet system? Face it, you can afford to have a more or less socialist system when the stability in your entire region is ensured.

 

Then there's another factor: diversity. Sweden has a smaller, more homogenous population. Hell, compared to the United States, so does Canada. (Yes, yes. You can cite Michael Moore about how Canada has as much ethnic diversity as the United States. I need a laugh.) The fact is, there's a lot involved in Sweden that depends on what goes on the in United States. There's a lot that goes on in the United States that depends on what happens in Europe, also.

 

Finally, the United States has the largest and fastest growing Economy of any of the so called first world countries. Countries such as China are growing fast, but such growth comes by introducing more capitalist elements, not less.

 

EDIT: Comedy. Rosbjerg beat me to the punch.

[draakh_kimera]

Kaftan and Draakh .. you both need to remember that the size of our countries makes our model possible .. do you realize how insanely expensive it would be for the US to have the same standards in social security, school, and health care as in our countries?

because of our small size and relative small (and generally extremely rich) population we can afford such high taxes and such expensive services..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Point to you! But we also have income taxes of up to or perhaps even over 60%, sales taxes of 25% (in Sweden), etc. Apply that to the US, along with our countries' social model, well, I guess it's open to debate...As for generally extremely rich, sure, when compared to the whole world. When compared to the US, I'm not so sure (and I can't be arsed to look it up).

[draakh_kimera]

Forgot to say, everything else remaining equal, by which I mean the state of affairs in the world in a neutral state.

[Rosbjerg]

oh we are extremely rich .. all the countries of Scandinavia is on the top 10 of richest countries in the world .. I think Norway is actually nr 3 ..

 

and while I love our model .. and wish that the rest of the world would be able to implement it on themselves .. it's just not possible .. because a social democratic country needs to have almost complete control of what goes in and out of the country .. and the US is the one of the most important countries, in many areas, but especially in regards of world economy .. if they were to close their borders and apply the same levels of taxes on import as we do, well .. that would be bad!! and if every major country did it .. well .. very bad!

[taks]

If the US is so great because of its more pure capitalist politics, then why is all the things necessary for living in the public sector such as publich healthcare etc. without a doubt better in countries with a more socialist system such as Canada or Sweden? Also, these countries have less homeless and outright empoverished people(in percentage or population)

they are not. health care in the US is the best in the world. people with money in canada come to the US for their health care because it sucks up there...

 

and homelessness is not a result of capitalism. many homeless are mentally ill, many choose to be that way. the difference is that socialst countries have the government dole, so nobody is homeless (well, not as many). and the phrase "impoverished" is a misnomer because the US "poverty line" is nearly middle class in most social-democracy countries...

 

And also capitalism isnt the reason why the US is the most powerful nation today, Haiti is also a very capitalist state yet they suffer from extreme poverty as most of the countries resources are being sold abroad by the very small group of people there with money.

capitalism is the reason the US is the most prosperous in the world. this, also, is what helped create the wealth that provided our immense military resources. haiti, too, suffers from problems beyond what you state here, including dictatorships. capitalism isn't a guarantee, either, it's just the only system proven to work, ever.

 

capitalism only benefits the strong, those that already have power and money. those without are forced to sell their labour at whatever price the rich are willing to pay

not true. i'm not wealthy yet capitalism has benefitted me immensely. i have no power, either. people are forced to sell their labor at whatever it is worth. if there is a shortage of a certain field, as in engineering, you get paid well. if there is an abundance of workers in a field, you get paid less. it's not about "what the rich are willing to pay" it's about supply and demand, period. simple concept that most communist supporters never seem to understand.

 

 

..ok, now im ranting again but the main issue is that capitalism creates a society that isnt very good to live in for the majority of the population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i guarantee that statement is not true, either. compare the US standard of living against any social-democracy and i guarantee ours is higher. not just for the wealthy, either, but for everybody. a common misconception is that comparing poverty in each of our countries is an apples to apples comparison... it is not. even our "poor" have greater buying power than most of the average every where else...

 

taks

[taks]

Take a country such as Sweden...  I've liked most Swedes, but they tout their economy as suggesting that they've really been on the ball.  This completely ingores the larger geo-political environment that has allowed them to enjoy their bounty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, sweden actually has a more capitalist economy than the US and not surprisingly, a higher per-capita income. well, by more capitalist i mean less regulated in general. there was a report that ranked us all a while back, not sure who did it. i think sweden was #1 and the US was like #3 or something... it compared taxes, regulations, trade restrictions, etc.

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

"and homelessness is not a result of capitalism. many homeless are mentally ill, many choose to be that way. the difference is that socialst countries have the government dole, so nobody is homeless (well, not as many). and the phrase "impoverished" is a misnomer because the US "poverty line" is nearly middle class in most social-democracy countries..."

 

now this is just a lie .. I'm sorry to say so .. but it is!

Scandinavia has a much higher living standard than the US! .. and the "the US "poverty line" is nearly middle class in most social-democracy countries" is just the other way around .. being poor in Denmark is having an monthly income of about 600$ .. because that's what you get from the goverment for being unemployed (you can even get a bonus of an additional 500$ every once in a while).. and that's something every single person can apply to, as long as they are danish citizens and out of a job (and most people are part of something called an A-Class were they get more like 1000$ a month).. now are you going to tell me that the poor in US are making more than 600 dollars a month?? because I have read the reports I "know" what poor is in your country and in the UK and countries with a similar policy..

 

oh and what kind of nonsense is "most are mentally ill"? that's extremely arrogant to claim! and I think every human would like to be rich and have stability .. of course a selected few chooses the homeless way .. but that's is far! from the majority!

 

that said .. this was not an attack of your system, because that's the best system for America.. but don't lie ..

 

and talking about Health care .. he was talking about health care being free, which imo is also preferable .. yes quality will drop , but atleast everyone can get medical attention ..

 

"even our "poor" have greater buying power than most of the average every where else..."

and why is that? that is because things are cheaper in your county, because of the free market, while in a social democracy a more planned economy is required .. which in turn can create inflation that raises prices .. so it's not because your poor have more money, their money is just worth more ..

[random evil guy]

oh we are extremely rich .. all the countries of Scandinavia is on the top 10 of richest countries in the world .. I think Norway is actually nr 3 ..

 

and while I love our model .. and wish that the rest of the world would be able to implement it on themselves .. it's just not possible .. because a social democratic country needs to have almost complete control of what goes in and out of the country .. and the US is the one of the most important countries, in many areas, but especially in regards of world economy .. if they were to close their borders and apply the same levels of taxes on import as we do, well  ..  that would be bad!! and if every major country did it .. well .. very bad!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

norway have been in the top 3 the last 10 years or so; i think we were 2nd the last time(luxembourg was richer)...

[Rosbjerg]

Norway is fourth now .. and Denmark is fith .. and the US is number 8 ..

[random evil guy]

and homelessness is not a result of capitalism.  many homeless are mentally ill, many choose to be that way.

 

you really are a d*ck, aren't you? i don't know if you're a liar or just ignorant. do you REALLY think many choose to be homeless?

 

btw, this is one of my biggest issues with the right wing extremist. they don't give a f*ck about other people. if they're mentally ill, they should get help. not roam the streets...

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

It's dumb, said I was left, but I'm extreme right.

[random evil guy]

Norway is fourth now .. and Denmark is fith .. and the US is number 8 ..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

hm, didn't know that. norway's gdp is about 40000 $ per capita...

 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...r/2004rank.html

 

(i think the numbers are a bit off. says here 260000 kr: http://www.ssb.no/magasinet/norge_verden/a...-11-04-02.html).

[213374U]

they are not.  health care in the US is the best in the world.

That is a lie, plain and simple. If you can't afford to pay you won't even get them to fix you a broken arm. Health care in the US is perhaps of an excellent quality, but only for those who can pay for it. Medical attention should never be a means to earn money, period.

 

 

if there is a shortage of a certain field, as in engineering, you get paid well.  if there is an abundance of workers in a field, you get paid less.  it's not about "what the rich are willing to pay" it's about supply and demand, period.  simple concept that most communist supporters never seem to understand.

False. If there is an abundance of workers in your field, you get fired. However, workers are not a commodity you can dispose of like spoiled fruit.

 

 

i guarantee that statement is not true, either.  compare the US standard of living against any social-democracy and i guarantee ours is higher.  not just for the wealthy, either, but for everybody.  a common misconception is that comparing poverty in each of our countries is an apples to apples comparison... it is not.  even our "poor" have greater buying power than most of the average every where else...

False, again. Why do you make things up? This proves you wrong.

[Rosbjerg]

it should be adressed that if you take a poor US citizen and any poor Scandinavian citizen and give them the exact same amount of money .. the poor from US will be able to buy more things! so it's not entirely untrue to say that their poor has a greater buying power!

but! since their poor will always have less money, the argument doesn't hold ..