After the gold rush...?

[Hondo]

This little gem just happens to be about England, but all the rest of them, Obama & Co especially, are barking up the same tree.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13576151

People are losing their jobs. They are cutting everything to the bone trying to stay afloat. Meantime, your governments, also falling short of revenues, not only are NOT cutting back, they are increasing in size, squeezing their citizens for every last penny they can steal through increased taxes, new fees, new taxes and new regulations.

I ask all you proud champions of socialism what you're going to do once you've taxed the rich to the poorhouse and destroyed the incentive for the ambitious to become rich? I have no doubt you'll harbor a certain smug inner warmth once, instead of lifting yourselves to higher levels, you managed to drag everyone down to your level of equality. Pray tell who is going to take care of your sorry butts once the money is gone and the well has run dry? At this point, especially for those born and raised on the dole, do you even know how to take care of yourselves?

When the whole comes apart, and it will, everywhere, it's going to be a mess out there. Globalism will be put on hold as each nation scrambles to save itself.

[Firstgear]

So, this isn't a Neil Young thread then?

[Hondo]

Sorry, no, but I am a Neil Young fan, long may he run!

[BDunnell]

People are losing their jobs. They are cutting everything to the bone trying to stay afloat. Meantime, your governments, also falling short of revenues, not only are NOT cutting back, they are increasing in size, squeezing their citizens for every last penny they can steal through increased taxes, new fees, new taxes and new regulations.

I ask all you proud champions of socialism what you're going to do once you've taxed the rich to the poorhouse and destroyed the incentive for the ambitious to become rich? I have no doubt you'll harbor a certain smug inner warmth once, instead of lifting yourselves to higher levels, you managed to drag everyone down to your level of equality. Pray tell who is going to take care of your sorry butts once the money is gone and the well has run dry? At this point, especially for those born and raised on the dole, do you even know how to take care of yourselves?

As I'm not a proud champion of socialism, I don't know, but in the short term I will yawn at yet another thread along these lines and go to bed.

[Rollo]

I ask all you proud champions of socialism what you're going to do once you've taxed the rich to the poorhouse and destroyed the incentive for the ambitious to become rich? I have no doubt you'll harbor a certain smug inner warmth once, instead of lifting yourselves to higher levels, you managed to drag everyone down to your level of equality.

Good.

We have seen executive pay skyrocket far in excess of regular wages. Rich people deserve to be cut back because in a lot of cases the only way they got that way is by leeching off of the profits produced by honest workers.
Can you honestly for instance tell me how is actually possible for someone to put in real work to earn $400,000 a year?

Once the money has gone and the well has gone dry? Very interesting turn of phrase you make here, because it is only people who work who produce anything. The well will be refilled because people work.

Management never has and never will actually produce anything; this is the crux of the issue and why your indignation is so incredibly and arrogantly misplaced.

[steve_spackman]

Economies in capitalist systems are essentially unplanned, so they often crash, producing depressions that damage the lives of millions. Socialist economies are planned, which means that problems can be foreseen and prevented. Ultimately, socialism guides with the aim of human happiness in mind, rather than the glorification or gratification of a particular individual or class. To gain this for all rather than just for some requires an element of social control – the excesses of capitalism will forever mean that too many fall by the wayside as the strong profit, and the weak are left behind.

[Mark]

Management never has and never will actually produce anything; this is the crux of the issue and why your indignation is so incredibly and arrogantly misplaced.

I was having this conversation the other day about managers who are in that position because they've worked their way up within the company and know what the job is all about. The type you can ask if you have a problem and they will know the answer as they've done it themselves for years.

Then there's the type which are paracuted in who don't actually know the work in hand and are just there to 'manage', are probably much less skilled than the workers they command and yet get paid much more for it.

[markabilly]

What worries me is that the idiots do not get it, what are they going to do next year or the year after that....
when does the stimulus end?

BTW--roosevelt did not dump money into companies to keep them afloat--the idea was to create JOBS so people would make the econmy and its money circulate on a perptual or permanet type basis

[Garry Walker]

Good.

We have seen executive pay skyrocket far in excess of regular wages. Rich people deserve to be cut back because in a lot of cases the only way they got that way is by leeching off of the profits produced by honest workers.
Can you honestly for instance tell me how is actually possible for someone to put in real work to earn $400,000 a year?

Yeah, and all the people who I know who earn over $400 000 a year (or anywhere close to it) put in a ridicolous amount of work compared to your average 9-5 "honest" worker and compared to your average public sector "worker" (useless leeches as I call them).
I know how much work one has to do for 400K and let me tell you, it is not that fun when you arrive home at 3 am and have to go out again at 8 am. Or when you have 2 free weekends during the year, where you are not busy with work on sunday.

Sure, there are managers who maybe dont deserve huge amounts of money, but loads of people put in an incredible amount of work to achieve that kind of success. No one is stopping the "poor" poor people from creating their own business, being ambitious and trying to get a better job. Take risks, be prepared to work hard. Instead of bitching and crying how much others earn, maybe do something useful with that time instead and educate yourself.
Why should I pay more and more, because some others have been so fcuking stupid and lazy and they have not done anything remotely notesworthy in their "careers." Yeah, keep delivering those pizzas.


Economies in capitalist systems are essentially unplanned, so they often crash, producing depressions that damage the lives of millions. Socialist economies are planned, which means that problems can be foreseen and prevented. Ultimately, socialism guides with the aim of human happiness in mind, rather than the glorification or gratification of a particular individual or class. To gain this for all rather than just for some requires an element of social control – the excesses of capitalism will forever mean that too many fall by the wayside as the strong profit, and the weak are left behind.

Soviet union proved how good socialism is, but you wouldnt know anything about that would you?

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="Garry Walker"]Yeah, and all the people who I know who earn over $400 000 a year (or anywhere close to it) put in a ridicolous amount of work compared to your average 9-5 "honest" worker and compared to your average public sector "worker" (useless leeches as I call them).
I know how much work one has to do for 400K and let me tell you, it is not that fun when you arrive home at 3 am and have to go out again at 8 am. Or when you have 2 free weekends during the year, where you are not busy with work on sunday.



What you are saying is that anyone earning 400K is working 16 times the hours of someone on 25K There arent enough hours in the week, Garry. . No one is going to convince me that 400K/ annum can be earned ethically with the same restraints that apply to us blue collar stiffs. The divide between the lowest and highest paid is at an all time high, in case you hadnt noticed. Tax the bastarsd to the hilt.

[Caroline]

I can't believe some of the stuff I am reading in this thread. Public sector workers are leeches? Hope you don't fall ill and need treatment from these wretched people. Some evidence suggests that there is a growing sector of the population who will just never work - live on benefits - who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves. That is something the Government urgently needs to address. Most people I know (that don't earn $400,00) are honest hard working, educated people. Just because they sacrifice the odd weekend to be with their families etc they should be put down? Yes, we should all work till we drop! That will make life better for all concerned.

However, our Government is particularly short sighted and is seemingly oblivious to the financial situation our country will face in 10/20 years. Quite a legacy for Gordon Brown. I bet some high flyin', well paid, consultants can be thanked for Labour's recent activity. Probably even worked on a Sunday too.

[steve_spackman]

Soviet union proved how good socialism is, but you wouldnt know anything about that would you?

Now Russia was a communist state..socialism and Communism are 2 totally different things. Socialism is liberal and Communism is conservative. A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing. Alot of people seem to get the 2 mixed up and think the 2 are the same..With these 'tea parties' i saw people waving banners saying socialism is for commies..how mistaken they are. I could not help but laugh at their stupidity.
While the word "socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism", the two are not the same - communism is an extreme form of socialism

[Firstgear]

Some evidence suggests that there is a growing sector of the population who will just never work - live on benefits - who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves.

This type of stuff really ticks me off - my tax dollars going to people who just look to use/abuse a system. A system that seems to just keep growing hungrier for more $$$.

There's been two local stories here in the last week illustrating these type of people.

One, where a university educated homeless man (who was in the news because he saved a kid from drowning) said he had never been given the opportunity to have a home. In my opinion, if you can get a university education, and you're fit enough to swim into a freezing swollen river to save a kid, you should be able to work and provide yourself with a home. You've just chosen not to, and decided to leech off of society instead.

The other example is a tragic one. A young boy died in a house fire on a Native reserve. He was asleep and the family forgot to get him out. The grandfather blames the tragedy on the government not providing adequate funding for housing. Why should my tax dollars provide for your housing? Go to work, earn some money, and pay for you own housing!!!

Fiero5.7, I think it all ends when there is no more middle class. Just a very few extremely rich, and many poor.

[BDunnell]

I was having this conversation the other day about managers who are in that position because they've worked their way up within the company and know what the job is all about. The type you can ask if you have a problem and they will know the answer as they've done it themselves for years.

Then there's the type which are paracuted in who don't actually know the work in hand and are just there to 'manage', are probably much less skilled than the workers they command and yet get paid much more for it.

...and who talk in the most annoying, ungrammatical, meaningless, mendacious, over-spun corporate babble ever heard to man, one of the most pernicious influences of modern-day business and business-people.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Economies in capitalist systems are essentially unplanned, so they often crash, producing depressions that damage the lives of millions. Socialist economies are planned, which means that problems can be foreseen and prevented. Ultimately, socialism guides with the aim of human happiness in mind, rather than the glorification or gratification of a particular individual or class. To gain this for all rather than just for some requires an element of social control – the excesses of capitalism will forever mean that too many fall by the wayside as the strong profit, and the weak are left behind.

Only one small problem Steve. That Element of social control. It goes against individual rights, it goes against human nature and it goes to the theory that people are belonging to a state to be "managed." Where does government control stop? Where can you show me a society that truly is built on a socialist model that works. I am waiting........

[steve_spackman]

Only one small problem Steve. That Element of social control. It goes against individual rights, it goes against human nature and it goes to the theory that people are belonging to a state to be "managed." Where does government control stop? Where can you show me a society that truly is built on a socialist model that works. I am waiting........

All people no matter what form of government it is, belong to 'the state'

Where can you show me a society that truly is built on a capitalist model that works?

In socialist systems, society is ruled by the people. Who would want to live any other way? In capitalist systems, society is ruled by money. Why would one want to live like that?

The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.

[Mark in Oshawa]

All people no matter what form of government it is, belong to 'the state'

Where can you show me a society that truly is built on a capitalist model that works?

In socialist systems, society is ruled by the people. Who would want to live any other way? In capitalist systems, society is ruled by money. Why would one want to live like that?

The wealth of the earth belongs to all men or to none. Under capitalism, property is concentrated into the hands of relatively few well-off people, leaving the many with nothing and at the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. This leads to gross inequality, exploitation and misery. Nor is it economically efficient, as the rich have so much already they have no incentive to use their land productively. Socialism seeks to redistribute wealth and to ensure that the means of production are at the service of the whole of society, so that all can benefit and none will go without.

We BOTH live in a capitalistic societies. You have rights of free speech, rights of expression and no one from the state predeterimines your destiny. We do NOT belong to the state. We can leave the state at any time if we can find another state that wants us. We can tell the state what we think of its leaders.

Your hatred of capitalism is wrong headed and here is why:

While many people "fall through the cracks" in capitalism, any society that professes to look after all its citizens such as Cuba, the old USSR or even North Korea usually does NOT. Furthermore, while capitalism has a lot of ills with it, in that it is perceived as "unfair", everyone is able to better their life and position in it through education, or having a better idea that they can sell and then therefore improve their lives. If I make a better mousetrap, convince millions to buy it, it isn't evil. What is evil is if I mistreat my workers, if I cheat the tax man, and if I make a product that knowlingly hurts people.

When you attack capitalism, you are then presupposing that the state should own everything and everybody. If you have anything LESS than that, then you have some form of a capitialistic society.

Not all countries allow as many freedoms for capitalists as others, but most nations with an economy that is doing ANYTHING allow capitalism. IT is human nature for some people to work harder than others, and the only way you stop progress in technology and innovation is to take away any incentive to work harder or create something to give yourself a better positition in life. If you choose to give your millions away or keep them, that is where you should have the moral issue. But it is the right of the guy who earns the money to decide where most of it goes. You take that away, and he will go to another society that allows it, leaving you with the fat, indolent and lazy....

[steve_spackman]

We BOTH live in a capitalistic societies. You have rights of free speech, rights of expression and no one from the state predeterimines your destiny. We do NOT belong to the state. We can leave the state at any time if we can find another state that wants us. We can tell the state what we think of its leaders.

Your hatred of capitalism is wrong headed and here is why:

While many people "fall through the cracks" in capitalism, any society that professes to look after all its citizens such as Cuba, the old USSR or even North Korea usually does NOT. Furthermore, while capitalism has a lot of ills with it, in that it is perceived as "unfair", everyone is able to better their life and position in it through education, or having a better idea that they can sell and then therefore improve their lives. If I make a better mousetrap, convince millions to buy it, it isn't evil. What is evil is if I mistreat my workers, if I cheat the tax man, and if I make a product that knowlingly hurts people.

When you attack capitalism, you are then presupposing that the state should own everything and everybody. If you have anything LESS than that, then you have some form of a capitialistic society.

Not all countries allow as many freedoms for capitalists as others, but most nations with an economy that is doing ANYTHING allow capitalism. IT is human nature for some people to work harder than others, and the only way you stop progress in technology and innovation is to take away any incentive to work harder or create something to give yourself a better positition in life. If you choose to give your millions away or keep them, that is where you should have the moral issue. But it is the right of the guy who earns the money to decide where most of it goes. You take that away, and he will go to another society that allows it, leaving you with the fat, indolent and lazy....

Never said i hate capitalism..just putting forth my views

Wasnt it capitalism that made the world economy come to a grinding halt?

North Korea and Cuba fail because they are totalitarian states

It is false to say that capitalism secures competition automatically. As everyone knows, monopolies are often formed under capitalist systems. Capitalist monopolies are pernicious - they mean that individuals profit obscenely as they can charge exorbitant costs, since citizens cannot obtain services anywhere else. On the other hand, socialist monopolies are benign since the state has the interests of citizens at heart, rather than the enrichment of a particular person.

Capitalism may use the language of human rights, but it only really respects the right of the weak to starve in the gutter, and the right of the strong to keep them there. Socialism understands rights more widely and fully, and provides for the right to work, the right to an education, and to health care free at the point of use. It cannot be right for a few individuals to block the progress of all towards these great goals.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Never said i hate capitalism..

It is false to say that capitalism secures competition automatically. As everyone knows, monopolies are often formed under capitalist systems. Capitalist monopolies are pernicious - they mean that individuals profit obscenely as they can charge exorbitant costs, since citizens cannot obtain services anywhere else. On the other hand, socialist monopolies are benign since the state has the interests of citizens at heart, rather than the enrichment of a particular person..

Could have fooled me. Monopolies are covered off in most societies under anti trust legislation. The only monopolies in Canada were state monopolies of health care and the Post Office. Both are ineffeicient in delivering their product. However, when Canada Post was forced into competing with Couriers, they improved their services. Funny....my government gives me no choice in health care, unless I want to pay cash in the US. It delivers this healthcare often in a haphazard fashion.

Socialist monopolies are stocked full of people filling out jobs that often would be reduced or not needed if not for the fact the government monopoly created them. Paying people to do little does nothing but suck up tax dollars.
You really are naive if you think the government really cares about you. They care only to get your vote next election. I don't care WHAT party you vote for or not vote for, all politicians want to be re-elected. THAT is a capitialist notion. Providing a service people are willing to buy into......


Capitalism may use the language of human rights, but it only really respects the right of the weak to starve in the gutter, and the right of the strong to keep them there. Socialism understands rights more widely and fully, and provides for the right to work, the right to an education, and to health care free at the point of use. It cannot be right for a few individuals to block the progress of all towards these great goals.

The strong isn't keeping the weak in the gutter. Giving people money from the state and giving them no incentive to improve their status through education or opportunity is the government offering compassion while doing nothing to eliminate the problem.

The poor in your nation and in mine often have had some bad luck, but usually that luck is self made, or has been at some point due to bad choices made. IF you dont' complete your secondary education, your chances of success are less. That isn't the state or any company doing that, that is a free choice we have. If you work for a low paying job all your life, at some point, it was your responsiblity to take advantage of an opportunity. That isn't the fault of some CEO smoking cigars in an office somewhere.

Being rich isn't a crime. What is a crime is telling people that they don't deserve to succeed and keep what they earn. IF you have a problem with rich people, you do hate capitalism.

[ShiftingGears]

At university theres a surprising amount of socialists bombarding everyone else with their baseless opinions. It's quite annoying.

[Mark in Oshawa]

At university theres a surprising amount of socialists bombarding everyone else with their baseless opinions. It's quite annoying.

Yes...Universities are perfect examples of socialism being rewarded. Professors, often too stuck on their own dogma to earn a living anywhere BUT teaching young minds full of naivety and filling it with their own silly theories. The fly in the ointment, that most of these twits if they had to earn a living with their abilities anywhere but a tax payer supported university, likely couldn't. If they did, it would be as an author, writing useless books full of tripe that other socialists would buy to reaffirm their notions of superioity. Of course, being an author, selling books...that's Capitalism, which they HATE.

Noam Chomsky is the best example of this. The man is a millionaire, and the last time I looked, wasn't going around giving his money away. Apparently he too invests his money for his retirement. In stocks.....

[ShiftingGears]

Yes...Universities are perfect examples of socialism being rewarded. Professors, often too stuck on their own dogma to earn a living anywhere BUT teaching young minds full of naivety and filling it with their own silly theories. The fly in the ointment, that most of these twits if they had to earn a living with their abilities anywhere but a tax payer supported university, likely couldn't. If they did, it would be as an author, writing useless books full of tripe that other socialists would buy to reaffirm their notions of superioity. Of course, being an author, selling books...that's Capitalism, which they HATE.

I wouldn't know about these professors, I'm not an arts student haha.

[EuroTroll]

Dear, oh dear, oh dear... :eek:

Are you actually writing these words, Steve? It seems to me that you have read something utopian, and have no idea - as you obviously cannot have personal experience - how these "ideals" end up working in real life...

Let me share some memories with you from my childhood. Until I was 10, I had the "pleasure" of living in a society that where "economies are planned, which means that problems can be foreseen and prevented", under glorious socialism "guided by the aim of human happiness", "ruled by the people"...

- One of my greatest childhood dreams was to eat banana. For many years, I had fantacized what this beautiful fruit that I'd seen advertised on Finnish TV (which we saw in Northern Estonia) might taste like. It finally happened when I was 9. It was great!

- There were times when people went to a restaurant and didn't ask to see the menu. There was no point in that. What they asked, instead, was "Do you have anything to eat?" There was. Usually potatoes and pork. So they ate that.

- It was absolutely the norm to steal from anywhere you could, especially your place of work. It was done without much guilt, since "everything belonged to the people", after all. That meant that it belonged to noone. Which meant that it was up for grabs, as long as you could get away with it. The most sought-after jobs were those of cooks, bakers, hotel employees. Because in those jobs, one would have access to food stuffs that were just not sold in grocery stores.

- A great delicacy at the time was smoked sausage. When it became known among groups of people that one store or another had smoked sausage, great cues formed outside the store. Usually, half the cuers left empty-handed.

- You could only buy a car if you had a licence to buy one. Most people had enough money to buy a car, but many of them couldn't buy one, because they didn't have that licence. The licences were distributed from places of work, either to the best employees or to the boss's nephew's friends, so to speak.

- If you wanted to visit a foreign country, you underwent a thorough screening by the KGB. If they found any flaw in your "resume", you wouldn't get the visa. A flaw might be, for example, that you had relatives in capitalist countries, because that made you a flight risk (about 70'000 Estonians fleed the country during WW2, especially in 1944). Or that one of your relatives fought on the "wrong" side during the war. (Many Estonians fought on the German side in WW2, because it was seen as the only viable way to oppose the Soviets, who were far more hated. Many also fought together with the Finns.) None of my four grandparents were ever outside the territory of the former Soviet Union.

- Basically, if you wanted to acquire some good or service, you had to have personal connections with the supplier, and then - to make sure - bribe him. In ways that we would now consider conventional, you would get precisely f*** all.

Why was this? Because the whole system was so completely insane, so against human nature. Everyone had a job, of course, and everyone was equally poor. That part was "great"... But if you take away the incentives for people to work hard, innovate, do your thing better than others, then you eventually end up in a situation where the society can no longer sustain itself, because - simply - not enough goods and services are produced. Why do you think North Korea is piss poor compared to South Korea? Essentially the same people in both countries, no? Koreans, that is. Why is it that your average South Korean lives in comfortable luxury, while your average North Korean has to wonder if he will be able to eat the next day?

Do think about that. ;)

There's nothing worse than "socialism" of that kind, I think. It eventually thoroughly corrupts people, while leaving them in miserable poverty.

[steve_spackman]

Dear, oh dear, oh dear... :eek:

Are you actually writing these words, Steve? It seems to me that you have read something utopian, and have no idea - as you obviously cannot have personal experience - how these "ideals" end up working in real life...

Let me share some memories with you from my childhood. Until I was 10, I had the "pleasure" of living in a society that where "economies are planned, which means that problems can be foreseen and prevented", under glorious socialism "guided by the aim of human happiness", "ruled by the people"...

- One of my greatest childhood dreams was to eat banana. For many years, I had fantacized what this beautiful fruit that I'd seen advertised on Finnish TV (which we saw in Northern Estonia) might taste like. It finally happened when I was 9. It was great!

- There were times when people went to a restaurant and didn't ask to see the menu. There was no point in that. What they asked, instead, was "Do you have anything to eat?" There was. Usually potatoes and pork. So they ate that.

- It was absolutely the norm to steal from anywhere you could, especially your place of work. It was done without much guilt, since "everything belonged to the people", after all. That meant that it belonged to noone. Which meant that it was up for grabs, as long as you could get away with it. The most sought-after jobs were those of cooks, bakers, hotel employees. Because in those jobs, one would have access to food stuffs that were just not sold in grocery stores.

- A great delicacy at the time was smoked sausage. When it became known among groups of people that one store or another had smoked sausage, great cues formed outside the store. Usually, half the cuers left empty-handed.

- You could only buy a car if you had a licence to buy one. Most people had enough money to buy a car, but many of them couldn't buy one, because they didn't have that licence. The licences were distributed from places of work, either to the best employees or to the boss's nephew's friends, so to speak.

- If you wanted to visit a foreign country, you underwent a thorough screening by the KGB. If they found any flaw in your "resume", you wouldn't get the visa. A flaw might be, for example, that you had relatives in capitalist countries, because that made you a flight risk (about 70'000 Estonians fleed the country during WW2, especially in 1944). Or that one of your relatives fought on the "wrong" side during the war. (Many Estonians fought on the German side in WW2, because it was seen as the only viable way to oppose the Soviets, who were far more hated. Many also fought together with the Finns.) None of my four grandparents were ever outside the territory of the former Soviet Union.

- Basically, if you wanted to acquire some good or service, you had to have personal connections with the supplier, and then - to make sure - bribe him. In ways that we would now consider conventional, you would get precisely f*** all.

Why was this? Because the whole system was so completely insane, so against human nature. Everyone had a job, of course, and everyone was equally poor. That part was "great"... But if you take away the incentives for people to work hard, innovate, do your thing better than others, then you eventually end up in a situation where the society can no longer sustain itself, because - simply - not enough goods and services are produced. Why do you think North Korea is piss poor compared to South Korea? Essentially the same people in both countries, no? Koreans, that is. Why is it that your average South Korean lives in comfortable luxury, while your average North Korean has to wonder if he will be able to eat the next day?

Do think about that. ;)

There's nothing worse than "socialism" of that kind, I think. It eventually thoroughly corrupts people, while leaving them in miserable poverty.

Let me guess..you are refering to Russia?

[EuroTroll]

Let me guess..you are refering to Russia?

I spent my childhood in the "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic". ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Flag_of_Estonian_SSR.svg/125px-Flag_of_Estonian_SSR.svg.png

:)

[steve_spackman]

I spent my childhood in the "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic". ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Flag_of_Estonian_SSR.svg/125px-Flag_of_Estonian_SSR.svg.png

:)

that was more Communism than Socialism. A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system.

I think that both socialism and capitalism both have strong and weak points.

[EuroTroll]

that was more Communism than Socialism. A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system

And what is socialism - the economic system, pray tell? :)

The main issue, in my view, is free market economy vs. planned economy.

[Mark in Oshawa]

that was more Communism than Socialism. A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system

Steve...read the rhetoric of the leaders of the USSR. They called it socialism, and they like you believed the state was in charge of planning, the state set out your destiny and they controlled everything in the end because it was the only way they could maintain power without actually admitting the whole damned mess was a failure. When Gorbachev came along and started granting small personal freedoms, it became obvious the whole thing was falling apart.

You should take some economic courses and learn with an open mind. Economic activity where everyone has access to a variety of products created by people motivated by "Greed' or god forbid, a desire to make money to make one's family life more comfortable is what takes place in every democracy in the western world. Where the highest standards of living are for the greatest majority of people. My god man, take a hard look at the UK and wonder how the hell you could have 50 plus million people living at a very high standard of living on such a small island. An island with little but coal as natural resources until the late 70's. It wasn't government control of the economy that did it, it was the industrial revolution, and with tinkering and some common sense rules and regulation (government HAS a role in making sure the game is played fairly) and some remarkable individuals; it has allowed the UK to survive fighting two massive wars for survivial in the last century while leading the world at times in aviation, electronics and manufacturing. The only dark period for this growth was when the government tried to nationalize the economy. One only has to look at the mess they made of British Leyland to understand why the government should stay the hell out of the ecomonic system.

Government and the state should defend freedoms of the individual, provide minimum standards for ecomonic activity to follow, enforce laws that protect citizens from the worst abuses (some capitalists are bad, but that "some" is actually very few) and provide a social safety net of some level to at least give people a place to start. They should fund defence, provide an educational system for primary and secondary students,some level of health care (not all of it), and collect just a bare minimum of taxes to do all of this. Any more than that, and they are starting to infringe upon capitalism.

Listen to what Studiose is telling you. He understands better than ANY other poster on this thread how state control of the economy and its people often is a sad and cruel joke.

One only has to read Orwell's Animal Farm to figure it out.......

[steve_spackman]

And what is socialism - the economic system, pray tell? :)

The main issue, in my view, is free market economy vs. planned economy.

And i respect your views...

Defining the term social economy is made especially difficult by the moving sands of the political and economic context. Consequently organisations may be part in, part out, in this year, out the next or moving within the social economys various sub-sectors, The economy of the UK is often considered to have three sectors and they are...

The private sector, which is privately owned and profit motivated;

The public sector which is owned by the state and provides services in the public interest; and a third sector that embraces a wide range of community, voluntary and not-for-profit activities.

Sometimes there is also reference to the informal sector where informal exchanges take place between family and friends.

www.spiritus-temporis.com/socialism/an-economic-system (http://www.spiritus-temporis.com)

Every country no matter what kind of government it has in power offers some form of socialism

[steve_spackman]

Steve...read the rhetoric of the leaders of the USSR. They called it socialism, and they like you believed the state was in charge of planning, the state set out your destiny and they controlled everything in the end because it was the only way they could maintain power without actually admitting the whole damned mess was a failure. When Gorbachev came along and started granting small personal freedoms, it became obvious the whole thing was falling apart.

You should take some economic courses and learn with an open mind. Economic activity where everyone has access to a variety of products created by people motivated by "Greed' or god forbid, a desire to make money to make one's family life more comfortable is what takes place in every democracy in the western world. Where the highest standards of living are for the greatest majority of people. My god man, take a hard look at the UK and wonder how the hell you could have 50 plus million people living at a very high standard of living on such a small island. An island with little but coal as natural resources until the late 70's. It wasn't government control of the economy that did it, it was the industrial revolution, and with tinkering and some common sense rules and regulation (government HAS a role in making sure the game is played fairly) and some remarkable individuals; it has allowed the UK to survive fighting two massive wars for survivial in the last century while leading the world at times in aviation, electronics and manufacturing. The only dark period for this growth was when the government tried to nationalize the economy. One only has to look at the mess they made of British Leyland to understand why the government should stay the hell out of the ecomonic system.

Government and the state should defend freedoms of the individual, provide minimum standards for ecomonic activity to follow, enforce laws that protect citizens from the worst abuses (some capitalists are bad, but that "some" is actually very few) and provide a social safety net of some level to at least give people a place to start. They should fund defence, provide an educational system for primary and secondary students,some level of health care (not all of it), and collect just a bare minimum of taxes to do all of this. Any more than that, and they are starting to infringe upon capitalism.

Listen to what Studiose is telling you. He understands better than ANY other poster on this thread how state control of the economy and its people often is a sad and cruel joke.

One only has to read Orwell's Animal Farm to figure it out.......

I have read George Orwell's Animal Farm. Did that for one of my English classes.

Did i not say that both have their own strong and weak points?

I am not anti capitalists by any means, im just throwing in my views for god sake. Dont get so defensive.

If you gave me a chance i was going to put down the good points of capitalism

[Mark in Oshawa]

You better put them down then, because your arguments so far was that the state has the right to run the show, and that capitalism was inheritely flawed to the point it wasn't worth it. Well, no system is perfect, humans are not perfect, but if you put down a list of the 30 best nations in which to live, there isn't one country in that 30 that doesn't use capitalism to drive its economy, and the nations that have provided the most growth for their citizens have used more capitalism and less state control than the others. One looks at what Ireland did coming up with one of the fastest growing economies of the last 20 years in the EC and you realize with some fine tuning, they grasped the balance between capitalism and state control. It is a very fine line, and it should always err on the side of ecomonic and personal freedoms.

The day you hand THAT control to the state, the USSR, Cuba and North Korea are your models, not the UK, USA, Canada, Sweden or Switzerland....

[chuck34]

Quick show of hands, who here is employed by a poor person?

*looking* *looking* *looking* *looking*

Didn't think so. So before we go villanizing the "rich" think about that. Do you want a job or not? Do you really think that being employed by "the state" in a socialistic society means that "the people" are really in control?

Get real! This is real life we live in here, not utopia. One thing everyone, Republicans/Democrats/Capitalists/Socialists, can agree on is that people are greedy. THAT is human nature. Does anyone really believe that is going to go away? Of course not! So why not harness the power of people's greed to improve everyone's lives? Give people an incentive to do well and earn more money. That way the best and brightest will rise to the top, make a bunch of money for themselves, and others. And employ a bunch of other people along the way, thus improving their lives as well.

One great example of this is the richest man in the world, Bill Gates. He didn't start out rich, quite the opposite. But he had a good idea, marketed it well, and made a butt load of money. Does anyone here want to deny him that? Remember he DONATES more money to charity than a lot of nation's GDP.

Another great example is the fact that the poor in the USA would live like kings in many other nations. The poor in the USA (those living below the poverty line) usually have a car, a couple TV's, at least an apartment, if not a house, and many other things considered "luxury" in other countries. (Sure there are some real hard-cases, but the majority of the poor in the US are in this category).

If anyone would deny that the USA is a Capitalistic society, and as such, is the richest nation ever to grace this planet ... well they are just fooling themselves.

You don't lift anyone up by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

[EuroTroll]

And i respect your views...

Defining the term social economy is made especially difficult by the moving sands of the political and economic context. Consequently organisations may be part in, part out, in this year, out the next or moving within the social economys various sub-sectors, The economy of the UK is often considered to have three sectors and they are...

The private sector, which is privately owned and profit motivated;

The public sector which is owned by the state and provides services in the public interest; and a third sector that embraces a wide range of community, voluntary and not-for-profit activities.

Sometimes there is also reference to the informal sector where informal exchanges take place between family and friends.

Every country no matter what kind of government it has in power offers some form of socialism

Yes, of course. Not all things can be market-regulated. I wouldn't want a profit-seeking police force, for example. :)

But what you seem to be advocating is the removal of competition between individuals in industry. Which is just... well, crazy. Humans - as all animals - are always as lazy as they can be. If you take away the motivation to exceed your comfort-zone - i.e the threat of starvation, and the opportunity for earthly pleasures, then you inevitably end up with a society where people work half-arsed.

My parents' generation, for example, underwent a very serious attitude adjustment in the early 1990s. In the Soviet times, people "were at work". Now, people "work". If you get my drift...

There must be competition. Remove that, and regression follows.

Unfortunately, of course, in competion there are winners and losers. Nothing can be done about that. It is the way of things. ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

As for me being defensive, I am not. I know history is in my favour. I am only so passionate about it because I for some reason see some worth in redeeming your poor misguided soul. If I thought you were just a tosser, I would have not bothered..lol

[steve_spackman]

But what you seem to be advocating is the removal of competition between individuals in industry.

not at all my friend..not at all

[steve_spackman]

As for me being defensive, I am not. I know history is in my favour. I am only so passionate about it because I for some reason see some worth in redeeming your poor misguided soul. If I thought you were just a tosser, I would have not bothered..lol

I am not misguided at all mate..I work for a company that thrives from capitalism..How can i be against it??

Im like i said, just giving both sides of the spectrum a bash if you would let me lol

[Mark in Oshawa]

Quick show of hands, who here is employed by a poor person?

*looking* *looking* *looking* *looking*

Didn't think so. So before we go villanizing the "rich" think about that. Do you want a job or not? Do you really think that being employed by "the state" in a socialistic society means that "the people" are really in control?

Get real! This is real life we live in here, not utopia. One thing everyone, Republicans/Democrats/Capitalists/Socialists, can agree on is that people are greedy. THAT is human nature. Does anyone really believe that is going to go away? Of course not! So why not harness the power of people's greed to improve everyone's lives? Give people an incentive to do well and earn more money. That way the best and brightest will rise to the top, make a bunch of money for themselves, and others. And employ a bunch of other people along the way, thus improving their lives as well.

One great example of this is the richest man in the world, Bill Gates. He didn't start out rich, quite the opposite. But he had a good idea, marketed it well, and made a butt load of money. Does anyone here want to deny him that? Remember he DONATES more money to charity than a lot of nation's GDP.

Another great example is the fact that the poor in the USA would live like kings in many other nations. The poor in the USA (those living below the poverty line) usually have a car, a couple TV's, at least an apartment, if not a house, and many other things considered "luxury" in other countries. (Sure there are some real hard-cases, but the majority of the poor in the US are in this category).

If anyone would deny that the USA is a Capitalistic society, and as such, is the richest nation ever to grace this planet ... well they are just fooling themselves.

You don't lift anyone up by bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Chuck, it is funny. My father grew up in a household that voted for the most left wing socialist party in the Canadian political system short of the Communist party (not even my grandfather would consider THAT). Yet my grandfather owned a barbershop. Sounds like capitalism to me. My dad, grew up, got a trade and was a big union man. Yet when his job was going away because of mismanagement in the company he worked for, the socialist party that he supported his whole life worked with the government who was in an econonmic protectionist mode to keep out American investors in our economy. Dad lost his job because the only bidder who wanted to run the business in bankruptcy was an American company, and was kept out by the government. How did the state help everyone there? Steve...pay close attention there...my dad learned his lesson there.

He learned it over time that rich men employ people. Multinational corporations, while often filled with people making large sums of money also pay large amounts of tax, employed people like my dad in the future ( he was hired by GM after a time as a tool and die maker). I had to point out to dad, while you can get mad at the rich guys running the car company, they paid him pretty well, on time, and allowed him to live better than most of the population of the planet, and what is more, if left to the government, he could just as easily be out of a job. He is long retired now, and is worried for other reasons, but part of that is because the idiot government ( there they are again, not doing their job) told GM in 1990 that they didn't have to keep funding the pension plan for Canadian workers. Now that GM is in TROUBLE, all that money that wasn't put in the pension fund because the government told GM not to worry about it, is now having the current provincial government shrugging their shoulders. Again...the state working against the best possible welfare of the workers. The state has to set rules (funding collectively bargained pensions) and ENFORCE them.

You have FAR too much faith in government my friend (Steve, Chuck knows where I am going)
My dad had that faith...he sure as heck doesn't now. The difference is now, the political parties that told him all his life were fighting for him, the socialists? They were the ones who let GM off the hook, they were the ones who blocked a saviour for his job and they are now the same ones who now claim capitalism is evil. NO....Capitalism works, as long as it is properly regulated and given as much latitude within reason as possible to work and be successful. However, for that to happen, sometimes businesses have to be allowed to fail. You take away the fear of failure, and you take away the drive to be better, which is what makes the world work..

God I love this sort of stuff!!!

[steve_spackman]

Another great example is the fact that the poor in the USA would live like kings in many other nations. The poor in the USA (those living below the poverty line) usually have a car, a couple TV's, at least an apartment, if not a house, and many other things considered "luxury" in other countries. (Sure there are some real hard-cases, but the majority of the poor in the US are in this category).

And these countries would be? Africa and some parts of Asia and South America

[EuroTroll]

NO....Capitalism works, as long as it is properly regulated and given as much latitude within reason as possible to work and be successful. However, for that to happen, sometimes businesses have to be allowed to fail. You take away the fear of failure, and you take away the drive to be better, which is what makes the world work..

Exactly!

[steve_spackman]

If anyone would deny that the USA is a Capitalistic society, and as such, is the richest nation ever to grace this planet ... well they are just fooling themselves.

The richest country in the world owned by...'other countries'

[steve_spackman]

NO....Capitalism works, as long as it is properly regulated and given as much latitude within reason as possible to work and be successful. However, for that to happen, sometimes businesses have to be allowed to fail. You take away the fear of failure, and you take away the drive to be better, which is what makes the world work..


It has not been regulated for a very long time..thats why the world economy went 'tits up'

[Mark in Oshawa]

And these countries would be? Africa and some parts of Asia and South America

The only flaw with capitalism on a macro scale, and where I will grant you some points Steve is that these poor nations are allowed to continue to wallow.......but then we can also bring up the other point. Personal freedom only comes from societies with ethical governments that have the legitimacy to lead their nations. Most of the poor nations have poor monopolies run by the state, usually feeding the bank account of the leaders. Zimbabwe anyone?

How about Hugo Chavez, who has driven the actual GDP of the citizen of his nation down? By nationalizing a lot of industry, and the oil industry in particular, he drove out a lot of rich, which didn't make anyone else in the country any richer now did it?

Poor nations without stable governments, stable rules, and personal freedoms for their citizenry cannot participate in capitalism and get its true benefits for the largest mass of the citizenry. That isn't the fault of capitalism tho. No one told Mugabe to run his country like his own personal fiefdom. Funny, when the white capitalists were around, the standard of living for all was higher. That didn't make their suppression of the blacks in what was Rhodesia right, any more than it was right for the Apartheid regime, but the aftermath of what happened is proof that you need to give economic freedom and couple it with personal freedom and keep the state out of trying to run everything. When that happens, you go no where...and that is most of the third world. The multinationals take advantage of that to a point, but it is up to the people's governments to protect them, not sell their country out to the highest bidder....

[chuck34]

And these countries would be? Africa and some parts of Asia and South America

And some countries in Europe. Do you have a point?

[chuck34]

The richest country in the world owned by...'other countries'

Only because over the last 15-20 years or so "the state" has come in and run things "better".

[chuck34]

It has not been regulated for a very long time..thats why the world economy went 'tits up'

Or perhaps it has been OVER regulated. Look up the Community Reinvestment Act. Specifically the ammendments/changes that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno rammed through

[steve_spackman]

For Capitalism

The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including land, businesses and goods) gives individuals security and a means to control their own affairs. Ownership brings responsibility and allows individuals to plan for the future so as to provide for themselves and their families. For example, owning a house, a business or some land makes it possible to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future.

See both have their weak and strong points...

[chuck34]

The only flaw with capitalism on a macro scale, and where I will grant you some points Steve is that these poor nations are allowed to continue to wallow

I think I have to disagree a bit here Mark. Sort of, but not really.

Anyway, my point is that the USA (especially under GWB, even though no one will give him any credit for this) has steped up their support for African nations.

"God helps those who help themselves."

[steve_spackman]

And some countries in Europe. Do you have a point?

Eastern European (former Soviet Bloc) countries yes.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It has not been regulated for a very long time..thats why the world economy went 'tits up'

The US Bank system was "regulated". By the same people who are running it now. Barney Frank and Senator Dobb encouraged using the banking system ( Fannie and Freddie in particular) and were running the finanicial committee's in Congress. They were warned by many in both parties that giving money to people who couldn't afford the loans would collapse the banking system. Yet they dismissed it. Giving money to people who had no stake in the mortgage wasn't capitalism Steve, it was stupidty. Because of the nature of how the US was run, the Presidency didn't have much help in trying to get Congress to see sense, and the people making money hand over fist off of this were long gone when the house of cards collapsed. Due to the nature of the US economy and how the world's money flows through NY, it infected most nations.

Banks Not run on sound financial princples failed. I will point out that the Canadian banking system never lost one bank, and continues to this day to make money and our economy has likely not suffered at all except in industry reliant on the US economy, that is the Auto sector. WE regulated our banks and we will be ok. Not sure what happened in the UK but they were over extended. Again....they failed.

We have downturns in the economy to be sure, but even in the hardest hit democracy, the US, people live pretty damned well if they were smart with their money. If they didn't over extend themselves, or have jobs where they are not dependent on someone else constantly ( having a trade perhaps?) or if they are willing to try their own business, they will surivive. Failing that, there is welfare and a safety net of sorts.

It isn't the governments job to make sure everyone has a job, or everyone has an equal result. They have the job to provide equality of opportuinity, not equality of outcome. If you waste your life and education, or fail to get one, that isnt' the government's fault, it is YOURS. THAT's FREEDOM.....

You take that way...see Studiose waiting to eat a banana.....

By the way Studiose...you gotta know I ate so many bananas as a kid I am surprised I don't live a tree..lol...I never thought anyone would want for a banana....

[chuck34]

For Capitalism

The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including land, businesses and goods) gives individuals security and a means to control their own affairs. Ownership brings responsibility and allows individuals to plan for the future so as to provide for themselves and their families. For example, owning a house, a business or some land makes it possible to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future.

See both have their weak and strong points...

Not seeing the weak point here. Your point, "ownership brings responsibilty and allows individuals to plan for the futer so as to provide for themselves and their families", is very powerful. If Man has his and his families best interests at heart, he will act in a logical and benevolent way. The screw-up comes when the State comes in and fixes his mistakes. See the current bail-outs for evidence of this. What motive do the greedy b@stards on Wall Street or at the car companies have for "doing the right thing"? They have done exactly the wrong thing and the government has stepped in and made everything ok. What has anyone learned from this little example?

[chuck34]

Eastern European (former Soviet Bloc) countries yes.

I'm a little slow tonight. How does that help your point about Socialism being so good?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think I have to disagree a bit here Mark. Sort of, but not really.

Anyway, my point is that the USA (especially under GWB, even though no one will give him any credit for this) has steped up their support for African nations.

"God helps those who help themselves."

We are looking at it differently. Bushie did a lot for Africa, Bono will be the first one to point that out, and he hardly is some raving neo-con.

That said, most of the third world is failing because their governments are not protecting their citizens and providing a playing field for ethical capitalisitic activity. That isn't the US's fault or Canada's fault, but it is often down to corrupt leaders playing games and getting rich. Steve would call that capitalism in some form...I call it corruption.

[steve_spackman]

The US Bank system was "regulated". By the same people who are running it now. Barney Frank and Senator Dobb encouraged using the banking system ( Fannie and Freddie in particular) and were running the finanicial committee's in Congress. They were warned by many in both parties that giving money to people who couldn't afford the loans would collapse the banking system. Yet they dismissed it. Giving money to people who had no stake in the mortgage wasn't capitalism Steve, it was stupidty. Because of the nature of how the US was run, the Presidency didn't have much help in trying to get Congress to see sense, and the people making money hand over fist off of this were long gone when the house of cards collapsed. Due to the nature of the US economy and how the world's money flows through NY, it infected most nations.

Banks Not run on sound financial princples failed. I will point out that the Canadian banking system never lost one bank, and continues to this day to make money and our economy has likely not suffered at all except in industry reliant on the US economy, that is the Auto sector. WE regulated our banks and we will be ok. Not sure what happened in the UK but they were over extended. Again....they failed.

We have downturns in the economy to be sure, but even in the hardest hit democracy, the US, people live pretty damned well if they were smart with their money. If they didn't over extend themselves, or have jobs where they are not dependent on someone else constantly ( having a trade perhaps?) or if they are willing to try their own business, they will surivive. Failing that, there is welfare and a safety net of sorts.

It isn't the governments job to make sure everyone has a job, or everyone has an equal result. They have the job to provide equality of opportuinity, not equality of outcome. If you waste your life and education, or fail to get one, that isnt' the government's fault, it is YOURS. THAT's FREEDOM.....

You take that way...see Studiose waiting to eat a banana.....

By the way Studiose...you gotta know I ate so many bananas as a kid I am surprised I don't live a tree..lol...I never thought anyone would want for a banana....

I dont depend on 'the state' to provide for me at all...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eastern European (former Soviet Bloc) countries yes.

Good lord....I hope you are not going to try to point out how the Bloc nations did ok under socialism? Studiose!!!!! Slap this boy.....You of all people can speak to this fallacy....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I dont depend on 'the state' to provide for me at all...

Then quit knocking capitialism pal. It is buttering your bread....

[steve_spackman]

I'm a little slow tonight. How does that help your point about Socialism being so good?

It doesnt at all..i was just throwing a few facts in there thats all..

[steve_spackman]

Good lord....I hope you are not going to try to point out how the Bloc nations did ok under socialism?

Not at all...that was Communism

[Mark in Oshawa]

For Capitalism

The right to own property is central to man’s existence. Private ownership of property (including land, businesses and goods) gives individuals security and a means to control their own affairs. Ownership brings responsibility and allows individuals to plan for the future so as to provide for themselves and their families. For example, owning a house, a business or some land makes it possible to borrow against that property so that individuals can invest for the future.

See both have their weak and strong points...


Then quit advocating we belong to the state because what you stated there is correct. It is the basis of your nation, Chuck's and mine.

You take away the above, and we are waiting to eat bananas....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Not at all...

Whew...this thread is racing...I misunderstood where you were going...

[steve_spackman]

That said, most of the third world is failing because their governments are not protecting their citizens and providing a playing field for ethical capitalisitic activity. That isn't the US's fault or Canada's fault, but it is often down to corrupt leaders playing games and getting rich. Steve would call that capitalism in some form...I call it corruption.

I too call that corruption thanks very much

[EuroTroll]

You take that way...see Studiose waiting to eat a banana.....

By the way Studiose...you gotta know I ate so many bananas as a kid I am surprised I don't live a tree..lol...I never thought anyone would want for a banana....

:) It was just one of those unattainable things. I mean, we didn't starve by any means, we had the basic food-stuff. Milk, potatoes, meat, local fruits (mostly apples) and vegetables. It's just that when we compared what we saw in advertisements on Finnish TV to what was available to us... Added to that the knowledge that before the war, Estonia and Finland were more-or-less equally developed economically...

I think it was Helmut Kohl who said that in the late 80s, he was sure the Berlin Wall would soon come down. The reason? Advertisements on West German television, which the East Germans saw. :)

[chuck34]

We are looking at it differently. Bushie did a lot for Africa, Bono will be the first one to point that out, and he hardly is some raving neo-con.

That said, most of the third world is failing because their governments are not protecting their citizens and providing a playing field for ethical capitalisitic activity. That isn't the US's fault or Canada's fault, but it is often down to corrupt leaders playing games and getting rich. Steve would call that capitalism in some form...I call it corruption.

Actually I think we are saying the same thing. The Rich (in this case the US) is giving a hand out to the Poor (in this case Africa). That does not guaruntee that the Poor will become Rich.

But the way I see it, that is the basis of Socialism. If you take from the Rich and give to the Poor, somehow the Poor become Rich.

[steve_spackman]

Then quit advocating we belong to the state because what you stated there is correct.

There are two sides to a coin right?

All i am doing is giving both sides a chance and to see where both sides fail and win.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck you have that right. Taking from the rich to give to the poor just means the rich are less rich.

Obama hasn't grasped that at all, and despite the fact I find him a very interesting dude and very bright, I think he will end up wearing this economic downturn and he will go out on his sheild. It may take 2 years but people will get tired of this punishing the rich and finding out the only real "rich" are those working for government in elected offices.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

There are two sides to a coin right?

All i am doing is giving both sides a chance and to see where both sides fail and win.


I hear you, but that wasn't the impression we were getting two pages back in this thread. You were saying the state had the right to run the show and control over the populace. THAT is the sort of stuff Lenin was spouting in 1916

[chuck34]

I dont depend on 'the state' to provide for me at all...

Again, maybe I'm slow tonight. But have you not been defending Socialism? And if so how is not depending on the state Socialistic?

[Mark in Oshawa]

:) It was just one of those unattainable things. I mean, we didn't starve by any means, we had the basic food-stuff. Milk, potatoes, meat, local fruits (mostly apples) and vegetables. It's just that when we compared what we saw in advertisements on Finnish TV to what was available to us... Added to that the knowledge that before the war, Estonia and Finland were more-or-less equally developed economically...

I think it was Helmut Kohl who said that in the late 80s, he was sure the Berlin Wall would soon come down. The reason? Advertisements on West German television, which the East Germans saw. :)

A small ancedote. A friend of my dad's is married to a family of Belorussians. The grandfather got out and came to Canada during the revolution. The granddaughter was married to my dad's buddy and is a second generation Canadian. She works in City Hall, he is a tool and die man like my father. Middle class, two cars, 1600 square foot home on an acre of land. Hardly rich, but doing well. Lisa( the Belorussian Canadian twice removed from the old country) was always in touch with a cousin who stayed behind. This cousin married a party man and they were big wheels in the Communist party in Minsk. They could travel to Cuba every year, but decided to see Canada one summer and visit Lisa, the penpal who never went to Minsk.

The Commies flie over, this is about 1980, so you can guess how cool relations were. They simply couldn't believe that a simple clerk in city hall and a blue collar tradesman could live so well. They believed the government was stocking the roads with cars to fool them. They couldn't believe the produce available to everyone. In short, they saw within HOURS just how much of a farce the USSR was...but one thing is for sure. If they had any conscience they had to know what a fraud "socialism" as practiced behind the iron curtain was.....

Never did hear what happened to them afterwards, Dad's buddy took another job offer and moved on...

[Mark in Oshawa]

lol...Chuck...I think we stifled the debate....which is wrong. I think Steve grasps a lot of what we are saying, just he was playing a bit of devils advocate and got us riled..lol

[chuck34]

Obama hasn't grasped that at all

He's grasped what he wants plenty. Remember, he's from the Saul Alensky (sp?) school. He stated in one of his books that he sought out left wing and Communist types at college so that he wouldn't be seen as a "sell out".

It seems that people don't want to take him for his word. He's done everything he ever said he would. He's lived up to everything that people who bothered to pay attention though he would do. It's just that people wanted and still want to believe in "change". And honestly, after Bush I can't say I blame them for that. But I do blame "them" for not knowing what kind of change The Big O was gonna bring.

[Mark in Oshawa]

He's grasped what he wants plenty. Remember, he's from the Saul Alensky (sp?) school. He stated in one of his books that he sought out left wing and Communist types at college so that he wouldn't be seen as a "sell out".

It seems that people don't want to take him for his word. He's done everything he ever said he would. He's lived up to everything that people who bothered to pay attention though he would do. It's just that people wanted and still want to believe in "change". And honestly, after Bush I can't say I blame them for that. But I do blame "them" for not knowing what kind of change The Big O was gonna bring.

ya...that's true. He made it sound really reasonable tho if you were not really paying attention..lol

It didn't help McCain's campaign was run by morons, and his personal belief system is so idelogically inconsistent that no one could grasp really what HE would do differently. Being a "Maverick" should have given him a chance if you believe the myth that the Republican party must swing to the center; and yet he never really found traction.

That said, I think a lot of Obama's appeal was that he gave black America a seat at the table, and no matter how out to lunch we may think his personal politics may be, that is an attractive point in Obama's favour. Too many Americans, black and white wanted to prove the point that a Black man could be President. Of course...now that black man who was elected by a considerable number of whites is now telling everyone that America didn't work until he came along.....right...come on Barack, you cant sell that to anyone with a clue who chooses to use their brain. He is living proof that the American dream and the capitalistic society that protects it still works. Now he is doing what he can I am afraid to screw it all up...

[chuck34]

lol...Chuck...I think we stifled the debate....which is wrong. I think Steve grasps a lot of what we are saying, just he was playing a bit of devils advocate and got us riled..lol

Probably. But that's why people should only speak from the heart. If you are only playing Devil's advocate then at least say such at the start.

It was fun while it lasted.

[steve_spackman]

Probably. But that's why people should only speak from the heart. If you are only playing Devil's advocate then at least say such at the start.

It was fun while it lasted.

I was actually seeing it from both sides..To be honest BOTH..YES BOTH have their good points

[Mark in Oshawa]

Probably. But that's why people should only speak from the heart. If you are only playing Devil's advocate then at least say such at the start.

It was fun while it lasted.

I think Steve forgot we can get pretty passionate with the whole debate. It is near and dear to my heart.

Put me in a pub with a few beers with a willing leftie and I would debate all night and leave buddies....despite probably never getting either side to give ground...

[steve_spackman]

lol...Chuck...I think we stifled the debate....which is wrong. I think Steve grasps a lot of what we are saying, just he was playing a bit of devils advocate and got us riled..lol

Nothing wrong with a good debate is there?

I enjoyed very much..

What shall we debate about next? LOL

[Mark in Oshawa]

Economies in capitalist systems are essentially unplanned, so they often crash, producing depressions that damage the lives of millions. Socialist economies are planned, which means that problems can be foreseen and prevented. Ultimately, socialism guides with the aim of human happiness in mind, rather than the glorification or gratification of a particular individual or class. To gain this for all rather than just for some requires an element of social control – the excesses of capitalism will forever mean that too many fall by the wayside as the strong profit, and the weak are left behind.


This is what you said Steve that put the match to the Gas. If you don't believe this, then you should have stated so....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nothing wrong with a good debate is there?

I enjoyed very much..

ok..that's good...you had me worried there for a second. Chuck and I didn't want to insult you or drive you off, just wanted to grasp where you stood after a while.

[chuck34]

ya...that's true. He made it sound really reasonable tho if you were not really paying attention..lol

It didn't help McCain's campaign was run by morons, and his personal belief system is so idelogically inconsistent that no one could grasp really what HE would do differently. Being a "Maverick" should have given him a chance if you believe the myth that the Republican party must swing to the center; and yet he never really found traction.

That said, I think a lot of Obama's appeal was that he gave black America a seat at the table, and no matter how out to lunch we may think his personal politics may be, that is an attractive point in Obama's favour. Too many Americans, black and white wanted to prove the point that a Black man could be President. Of course...now that black man who was elected by a considerable number of whites is now telling everyone that America didn't work until he came along.....right...come on Barack, you cant sell that to anyone with a clue who chooses to use their brain. He is living proof that the American dream and the capitalistic society that protects it still works. Now he is doing what he can I am afraid to screw it all up...

McCain's campain WAS a ROYAL mess. Too bad I sort of like the guy, at least on some things.

You are right about Obama's campaign. One of the central themes seems to have been that America is a "downright mean place", and that we are still fundementally racist. Yet somehow his election has not changed that. And he must make it "fair" once again.

Just look at the statements he has made about the Supreme Court Appointment. And how he wants to appoint someone that will have "empathy" for the "downtroaden". I'm sorry, but I can not disagree more (and that's saying something with this guy). But Judges should not have "empathy". The Law applies equally to everyone, no matter there situation. You can not favor the rich because they are rich and you are looking for favor, nor can you favor the poor because you feel bad for them. The law is equal to all.

[steve_spackman]

I think Steve forgot we can get pretty passionate with the whole debate. It is near and dear to my heart.

I dont forget that at all. Believe it or not its also near and dear to my heart too

[steve_spackman]

Put me in a pub with a few beers with a willing leftie and I would debate all night and leave buddies....despite probably never getting either side to give ground...

I would enjoy that very much mate!

[Mark in Oshawa]

McCain's campain WAS a ROYAL mess. Too bad I sort of like the guy, at least on some things.

You are right about Obama's campaign. One of the central themes seems to have been that America is a "downright mean place", and that we are still fundementally racist. Yet somehow his election has not changed that. And he must make it "fair" once again.

Just look at the statements he has made about the Supreme Court Appointment. And how he wants to appoint someone that will have "empathy" for the "downtroaden". I'm sorry, but I can not disagree more (and that's saying something with this guy). But Judges should not have "empathy". The Law applies equally to everyone, no matter there situation. You can not favor the rich because they are rich and you are looking for favor, nor can you favor the poor because you feel bad for them. The law is equal to all.

Justice is supposed to be blind. That said, both parties have played some idelogical games with appointments, mainly trying to protect Abortion, or get ride of it.

That said, I have very little faith in Obama to understand the enomority of what he is doing on this one. You are spot on. If he came out and just said he was picking the best possible judge and the judge was libreal leaning but at least with some history of looking at the law, I think you could live with it. You may not like it, but you would live with it. I am thinking he is going to come out of left field on this one and even most Democrats are going to realize who is driving the bus here and it MAY be the first thread being pulled in this nice neat little blanket he has wrapped around his presidency.

[chuck34]

I think Steve forgot we can get pretty passionate with the whole debate. It is near and dear to my heart.

Put me in a pub with a few beers with a willing leftie and I would debate all night and leave buddies....despite probably never getting either side to give ground...

I love a good debate. Especially with someone from the other side that actually has thought out things.

Put a few beers in me and it'll go on for ever.

I'm not going to lie, I might have a few good German Pilsners in me right now.

[chuck34]

ok..that's good...you had me worried there for a second. Chuck and I didn't want to insult you or drive you off, just wanted to grasp where you stood after a while.

I second that Mark. I know that a while ago Steve and I had a bit of a "tiff". But this has been most enjoyable.

And Steve, you are right Socialism DOES have it's place. It's just a very limited and narrow place. Military, Interstate Highways, and Iterstate Commerce are about the limit.

But I suppose that may be an "American" view as well.

[chuck34]

Justice is supposed to be blind. That said, both parties have played some idelogical games with appointments, mainly trying to protect Abortion, or get ride of it.

That said, I have very little faith in Obama to understand the enomority of what he is doing on this one. You are spot on. If he came out and just said he was picking the best possible judge and the judge was libreal leaning but at least with some history of looking at the law, I think you could live with it. You may not like it, but you would live with it. I am thinking he is going to come out of left field on this one and even most Democrats are going to realize who is driving the bus here and it MAY be the first thread being pulled in this nice neat little blanket he has wrapped around his presidency.

Exactly, if he said he would appoint the person who he thought would interpret the Constitution/Law from his "Liberal" viewpoint, I wouldn't like it, but that's the game. "Elections have consequences". But to say that you want to appoint someone with "empathy" instead of determining things based on the Law, is beyond the pale in my book.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No beer in me. I was supposed to be driving up north two hours ago and couldn't leave the debate.

However, I know there is a few cold Molson Canadian in my Dad's fridge up at his trailer on the lake, and I know I have a can of Guinness in my mother-in-law's fridge where I will be for part of tomorrow before going over to my folks for supper. Gonna have the wife do the driving so I can enjoy those beers ..lol

[Mark in Oshawa]

I second that Mark. I know that a while ago Steve and I had a bit of a "tiff". But this has been most enjoyable.

And Steve, you are right Socialism DOES have it's place. It's just a very limited and narrow place. Military, Interstate Highways, and Iterstate Commerce are about the limit.

But I suppose that may be an "American" view as well.

It isn't socialism. It is the responsibility of government to regulate and govern. That doesn't mean to shape the nature of business, or protect business from failure. What is happening now with the US Government propping up banks by force ( many didn't want the help but were forced to take it ) and buying into GM and Chrysler and threatening the bond holders and people who are owed money by both to accept cents on the dollar is just wrong. It has come out of late Obama's negotiators have been threatening some of the stake holders with public press attacks. Using the press to get your way is out of the Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro school of using media.

GM and Chrysler would have found a way through Chapter 11, some benign government loans to find some level of survivial. It would be ugly, but this was something brewing independent of the economic meltdown. This was capitalism, but it also was economics working. No one asked Obama to start dictating who is running GM and how much the stake holders should accept. That's just wrong.

Regulate, govern benignly, look ahead farther than the next election cycle....oh god...there I go being optimistic a politician might have a clue....

[chuck34]

GM and Chrysler would have found a way through Chapter 11, some benign government loans to find some level of survivial. It would be ugly, but this was something brewing independent of the economic meltdown. This was capitalism, but it also was economics working. No one asked Obama to start dictating who is running GM and how much the stake holders should accept. That's just wrong.


Exactly. Has no one ever heard of Studebaker, AMC, Packard, Duesenburg, Stutz, etc.?????

Companies go bankrupt all the time. It's healthy. Sperate the wheat from the chaff and all that.

[Hondo]

As far as large salaries are concerned, it is the company's decision whether to pay it or not. When you get down to "real work" you can easily say most celebraties are over paid. How hard is it to read the news in front of a tv camera every night? How much does the weather guy get paid for being wrong so often? There is no reason to cap what someone asks for salary and no reason to cap what an employer is willing to pay, unless taxpayer money is involved, in which case, taxpayers should have some input on the salary structure.

As far as smaller and newer companies go, starting and running your own business is more than printing up a bunch of buiness cards with CEO after your name on them. It's long hours, little pay to start with, and alot of personal financial risk. Many don't make it the first, second, or even third time, but they keep chasing the dream. When they do make it, I don't begrudge them one penny of their earnings. Where was the government and the "give me a hand out" crowd when the hours were put in and the risks were being taken? The people that try to make it and do make it to success were willing to use the opportunities the capitalistic system provides to everybody. Take away the rewards and you've taken away the incentive to strive for more. That means nobody starting new businesses, along with the new jobs they create. Those new jobs create additional revenue for the government and increased consumer spending.

Socialism is a giant pyramid scheme that ultimately collapses, depending on population growth and services provided, when it becomes impossible to take in enough revenue to cover expenses. No social program has beaten poverty and none will. Once human beings realize the poorer they are and the more children they have, the larger their government benefits grow why go work for a living when this is getting you by. Their children learn the the system early on and stay in it after reaching legal adulthood. Now your paying benefits to the parents and their offspring. At some point you'll be paying benefits to the parents, the offspring, and the grandchildren.

Whats going to happen when the money stops? That time is coming.

[Garry Walker]

Tax the bastarsd to the hilt.
Typical jealousy.


I can't believe some of the stuff I am reading in this thread. Public sector workers are leeches? Civil servants are by and large the laziest people I have ever encountered, with very exceptions. Most who work there simply are too lazy and too stupid to succeed in private sector. This is what I have experienced in real life far too many times. Even some civil servants have admitted to me that they left private sector, because there they couldnt get away with being lazy and not working hard.


Some evidence suggests that there is a growing sector of the population who will just never work - live on benefits - who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves. These people are useless leeches too and I for one would take all their benefits away and if they starve, I couldnt care less.



Yes, we should all work till we drop! That will make life better for all concerned.
But those who choose to do so, should be allowed to reap the benefits and imbeciles should not be crying about it and demanding them to be taxed till they drop.


Now Russia was a communist state..socialism and Communism are 2 totally different things. Socialism is liberal and Communism is conservative. A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing. Alot of people seem to get the 2 mixed up and think the 2 are the same..With these 'tea parties' i saw people waving banners saying socialism is for commies..how mistaken they are. I could not help but laugh at their stupidity.
While the word "socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism", the two are not the same - communism is an extreme form of socialism
Soviet Union was a socialist country.

[steve_spackman]

But I suppose that may be an "American" view as well.

I do believe that its a American thing. Dont know why? Forms of socialism is carried out everyday in the US, from the post office, through to medicad..

[steve_spackman]

Soviet Union was a socialist country.

Soviet Union was a Communist country. Socialism, is commonly confused with Communism

Communism is basically a more extreme form of Socialism. Communists believe that all property should be owned by the government on behalf of the people. In Commmunism everyone should produce according to their capability and receive according to their needs. Communism is almost universally regarded as being unworkable.

[airshifter]

Put me in a pub with a few beers with a willing leftie and I would debate all night and leave buddies....despite probably never getting either side to give ground...

I could do that as well, just as long as I get to leave before the leftie asks the entire bar to split up his tab! :laugh:

[Rollo]

Socialism is a giant pyramid scheme that ultimately collapses, depending on population growth and services provided, when it becomes impossible to take in enough revenue to cover expenses. No social program has beaten poverty and none will.

Correct, but is the alternative better? I don't know if you've thought this through.

Grant that poverty is going to be difficult to control, but making an attempt is a far nobler thing than in a pure capitalistic system where there is no attempt at all.
What economic benefit is there in helping the poor? Nil. If a purely capitalistic approach is taken then the fate of people is of zero consequence, because there is no profit taking ability in doing anything about it.
The "market" does not actually determine what is socially prudent, it only determines the level of prices. Goods/services which are inefficient uses of capital are not provided for. This is known as a "market failure".

The classic example of this is the little brass plaques you happen to see around London, that indicated if a building before 1865 was insured against fire.
Left purely to market forces, a building that was not insured by an insurance company was left to burn by that company's fire brigade unless it actually posed a significant threat to their insured interests. It probably helped in part to cause the fire at the Houses of Parliament in 1834 and the spate of fires on the River Thames in 1861.

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/FireMarksAndPayments.asp
Brigades would use the firemarks to identify whether a certain building was insured by them. When a building was on fire, several brigades would attend and if they did not see their specific firemark on the building, they would go away and leave it to burn.
I guess that's capitalism in action for you.

Your argument is countered not by "what is efficient" but by "what the people ought to have". A fairly reasonable case can be made for the defence forces, schools, roads, clean water services, sanitation, hospitals and health care, police, fire brigades, because if people don't have access to those things then people die...

... which under a purely capitalistic approach, is of not interest unless there's a measurable economic benefit or detriment.

[steve_spackman]

Correct, but is the alternative better? I don't know if you've thought this through.

Grant that poverty is going to be difficult to control, but making an attempt is a far nobler thing than in a pure capitalistic system where there is no attempt at all.
What economic benefit is there in helping the poor? Nil. If a purely capitalistic approach is taken then the fate of people is of zero consequence, because there is no profit taking ability in doing anything about it.
The "market" does not actually determine what is socially prudent, it only determines the level of prices. Goods/services which are inefficient uses of capital are not provided for. This is known as a "market failure".

The classic example of this is the little brass plaques you happen to see around London, that indicated if a building before 1865 was insured against fire.
Left purely to market forces, a building that was not insured by an insurance company was left to burn by that company's fire brigade unless it actually posed a significant threat to their insured interests. It probably helped in part to cause the fire at the Houses of Parliament in 1834 and the spate of fires on the River Thames in 1861.

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/FireMarksAndPayments.asp
Brigades would use the firemarks to identify whether a certain building was insured by them. When a building was on fire, several brigades would attend and if they did not see their specific firemark on the building, they would go away and leave it to burn.
I guess that's capitalism in action for you.

Your argument is countered not by "what is efficient" but by "what the people ought to have". A fairly reasonable case can be made for the defence forces, schools, roads, clean water services, sanitation, hospitals and health care, police, fire brigades, because if people don't have access to those things then people die...

... which under a purely capitalistic approach, is of not interest unless there's a measurable economic benefit or detriment.

agreed :up:

[Camelopard]

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/FireMarksAndPayments.asp
Brigades would use the firemarks to identify whether a certain building was insured by them. When a building was on fire, several brigades would attend and if they did not see their specific firemark on the building, they would go away and leave it to burn.
I guess that's capitalism in action for you.


I've seen these firemarks on buildings in the US as well, Georgetown, Colorado is one.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I could do that as well, just as long as I get to leave before the leftie asks the entire bar to split up his tab! :laugh:


I don't run a tab....A good capitalist pays his money straight up!

[Mark in Oshawa]

Correct, but is the alternative better? I don't know if you've thought this through.

Grant that poverty is going to be difficult to control, but making an attempt is a far nobler thing than in a pure capitalistic system where there is no attempt at all.
What economic benefit is there in helping the poor? Nil. If a purely capitalistic approach is taken then the fate of people is of zero consequence, because there is no profit taking ability in doing anything about it.
The "market" does not actually determine what is socially prudent, it only determines the level of prices. Goods/services which are inefficient uses of capital are not provided for. This is known as a "market failure".

The classic example of this is the little brass plaques you happen to see around London, that indicated if a building before 1865 was insured against fire.
Left purely to market forces, a building that was not insured by an insurance company was left to burn by that company's fire brigade unless it actually posed a significant threat to their insured interests. It probably helped in part to cause the fire at the Houses of Parliament in 1834 and the spate of fires on the River Thames in 1861.

http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/FireMarksAndPayments.asp
Brigades would use the firemarks to identify whether a certain building was insured by them. When a building was on fire, several brigades would attend and if they did not see their specific firemark on the building, they would go away and leave it to burn.
I guess that's capitalism in action for you.

Your argument is countered not by "what is efficient" but by "what the people ought to have". A fairly reasonable case can be made for the defence forces, schools, roads, clean water services, sanitation, hospitals and health care, police, fire brigades, because if people don't have access to those things then people die...

... which under a purely capitalistic approach, is of not interest unless there's a measurable economic benefit or detriment.

I have always argued for some form of role for government and public service. I am not a pure laissez faire capitalist, and I think any society that runs on a principle simliar to what is described above is one that is going to have people falling through some pretty big holes.

I believe though that there has to be a balance between the needs of the many through the state, and the ability of the individual to determine his destiny. What you are describing here no longer is the case, and the UK in this time period was still growing into a modern economy. I would no more defend the slavery in pre-Civil War America as a capitalist product then I would fire services wanting to see the right "sign" before doing their jobs.

As I have said a few times, the government has to set the game up, regulate it in an efficient manner, and let the game of capitalism be played. That means having winners and losers and letting the markets play out. Sometimes that means temporary pain, but often in the end, the economic system is better for it. Whenver government tries to interfere with this process by participating in it ( buying up corporations and running them ), or setting out regulations that will abnormally interfere with the free market (tarrif walls, unfair trade restrictions, or extreme taxation), they can run into trouble.

It is a ying/yang sort of thing. Government has a role in any capitalist society, but if it thinks it has the answers to all the ills (poverty being the one most often "Fought" against), it fails, often miserably. The most active government interventions by left of center parties often end up causing more trouble than they solve. Labour's nationalizing the UK car market with the ownership of British Leyland; Canada's aborted "window on the oil industry" of Petro Canada; Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac lending money to people for mortgages in the US based on their economic background and race, regardless of their ability to pay. All three of these examples didn't end well for the nations involved, and in all three cases, the national governments started playing in a game they are ill-equipped to understand from an intellectual standpoint.

[Camelopard]

I don't run a tab....A good capitalist pays his money straight up!

You have never heard the line "the cheques in the post", then? :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Soviet Union was a Communist country. Socialism, is commonly confused with Communism

Communism is basically a more extreme form of Socialism. Communists believe that all property should be owned by the government on behalf of the people. In Commmunism everyone should produce according to their capability and receive according to their needs. Communism is almost universally regarded as being unworkable.

Very true. The problem often lies though in a lot of socialist politicians adopting many of these tenets. The concept of immenient domain in many places in the US where the state or local government basically will ignore the rights of private property owners to do something "for the community" whether it be to expropriate land for an airport, highway, shopping mall or some private concern that has used their influence to get politicians to do their bidding.

Socialist tenets such as helping everyone with health care, providing a social safety net for people out of work, and the less fortunate all are around in most capitialistic societies. The danger always lies though in how much help/aid should a society give people and socialistic politicians using these programs to perpetuate their re-election. One only has to look at the one sided political machines in the poorer sections of places like Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Chicago and NYC to understand how one party has been running the show since Lincoln was wearing short pants, and yet the situation of the poor there never gets better despite a massive social/welfare apparatus in all these cities set up to cater to this poor.

As it was pointed out above, any efforts by the state to eradicate "poverty" fail.

[steve_spackman]

You have never heard the line "the cheques in the post", then? :)

;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

You have never heard the line "the cheques in the post", then? :)


I've heard it, I just never believe it. I don't believe in spending money I may not have, hence the pay as you go philosophy. If government operated on this model, we wouldn't have this thread....