Thread: The United States and the Leftist Realm

What are your beliefs concerning leftist ideologies and its effective practices in the world? And by "the left side", I mean socialism, communism, and systems of the like. As oversimplified as it may sound to you, it still comes down to: Good or bad?

And what do you think are the motives for the United States' strong militaristic opposition to such governments in history? The Central Intelligence Agency has played quite a big role in changing foreign affairs. Is it so detrimental to the nation's well-being that certain nations have such political systems?

The word socialism is greatly manipulated by Americas political right. They connect it to USSR style communism, but thats a lie. These socialists do (not) want a dictator, they want democratic elections.


But when most Americans refer to socialism, they are referring to countries like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, ex.ex.

Perhaps "Social Capitalists", is the best term to describe these countries.

These Social capitalist countries in Europe, outperform America in every way. They have better healthcare systems than America, lower federal deficits, lower national debt, they live longer, take longer vacations, scientists say they are happier than us, they have more freedom, they make more money, their economies are the same or better than Americas, they are cleaner, they recycle more, they put out less pollution, they have better schools, their students are smarter, their old people are better cared for, they have less hungry children, they have less poverty, they have less homeless people, ex.ex.ex.ex.

You said, and what do you think are the motives for the United States' strong militaristic opposition to such governments in history.........


I think Americas strong opposition to these governments of the past, was caused by our culture of freedom. Countries like the USSR had military dictators, they even built walls so their people could not leave. I would guess the CIA fought these countries, because they did not want a (dictator) coming to America.

Today most Americans are scared of socialism, but I believe many of them, are actually scared of a dictator.


Socialism means the working class has all the power.
Pure capitalism causes the rich to have all the power.

Its ironic,
It would seem that working class people, who want the rich to have all the power, would want an elitist kind of leader.

Perhaps the people who cry about socialism, are actually the people who naturally follow dictator's, or maybe they just want the rich to be their leaders?

Socialism means the working class has all the power.
Pure capitalism causes the rich to have all the power.

This formulation doesn't work. It puts economic arrangements as the top dog in social organisation rather than social organisation determining the desirable forms of economic processes to best serve society.

There are ways to make socialism work better within a society. There are ways to make capitalism work better within a society.

Most popular interpretations of both seem to have a simplistic Marxist analysis frozen in some kind of time capsule at their heart. We've moved on and developed most of the major social and scientific ideas from the mid 19th century. There's a lot more to economics and politics than "ownership of the means of production" and the other catchphrases that trail in its wake.

Originally Posted by adelady

Socialism means the working class has all the power.
Pure capitalism causes the rich to have all the power.

This formulation doesn't work. It puts economic arrangements as the top dog in social organisation rather than social organisation determining the desirable forms of economic processes to best serve society.

There are ways to make socialism work better within a society. There are ways to make capitalism work better within a society.

Most popular interpretations of both seem to have a simplistic Marxist analysis frozen in some kind of time capsule at their heart. We've moved on and developed most of the major social and scientific ideas from the mid 19th century. There's a lot more to economics and politics than "ownership of the means of production" and the other catchphrases that trail in its wake.

I see your point, and socialism has many different forms.

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both of these sources state, power being taken by the working class, employee ownership, or citizen ownership.


And regarding my statements about capitalism, in capitalist America, (only the rich are able to be members of our federal government.) So the rich rule everything in America.



I have no real knowledge of anything else you said, but I assume you are correct.

And I know no interpretations of socialism, I just want a government like in "Star Trek the Next Generation."

Sorry for being stupid, but I really do want a government like that.
Chad.

Originally Posted by chad

The word socialism is greatly manipulated by Americas political right. They connect it to USSR style communism, but thats a lie. These socialists do (not) want a dictator, they want democratic elections.

They may not want a dictator. That doesn't mean they won't get one.

But when most Americans refer to socialism, they are referring to countries like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, ex.ex.

Perhaps "Social Capitalists", is the best term to describe these countries.

These Social capitalist countries in Europe, outperform America in every way. They have better healthcare systems than America, lower federal deficits, lower national debt, they live longer, take longer vacations, scientists say they are happier than us, they have more freedom, they make more money, their economies are the same or better than Americas, they are cleaner, they recycle more, they put out less pollution, they have better schools, their students are smarter, their old people are better cared for, they have less hungry children, they have less poverty, they have less homeless people, ex.ex.ex.ex.

Their military capability is negligble, and they rely on the US for that. The unemployment rate in Europe is 11.5 percent, and several of the countries are going bankrupt.

Unemployment in Europe: get the figures for every country | News | guardian.co.uk

You'll also find by comparisons, that wages in the US, for just about every field are higher than Europe, though usually not by much. International Average Salary Income Comparison They also have less disposable income, because of higher overall tax rates, though the difference isn't nearly as much as many Americans think it is because Americans get hit from every direction (local, country, state, fed SS, medicare, income etc) while Europeans tend to consolidate though tax rates. I also have to echo Harold's point, they've let another country bare the burden for most of their defense for the past 60+ years.

Originally Posted by epidecus

What are your beliefs concerning leftist ideologies and its effective practices in the world? And by "the left side", I mean socialism, communism, and systems of the like. As oversimplified as it may sound to you, it still comes down to: Good or bad?

I would have normally been in favour of more capitalistic policies, but events have shown us that if we go to far down that road you end up with millions of people becoming homeless and without healthcare, so we need a way to reconcile this but remain competitive at the same time. So while there's nothing wrong with capitalist or even right wing policies in of themselves, it is vital that they find a way to ensure the most vunerable of society are protected. Normally what we would call left wing policies are more concerned with protecting the poor and vunerable, however they can also end up as a poverty trap with even well able people ending up depending on welfare and handouts because they have no incentive or motivation to find a way out. The problem is striking that perfect balance that allows the genuinely incapable to be protected and supported within a society and yet still pushing and driving those that are able to go and make something of their lives. So how about a bit of left and right wing collusion to come up with the right answers to the key questions for once rather than all the hostile rhetoric and back biting.

they've let another country bare the burden for most of their defense for the past 60+ years.

America isn't just another country.

It is the biggest country in the world in terms of wealth. And that's partly due to the fact that it's the biggest country in the world by population after China and India.

We're not talking about one person in a family having to make up for others of equal capacity who are just slacking off. It's more like comparing asking a minibus to do the same job as a tank. Even if you add Germany, France, Italy and the UK together, you're still short. You only get above the US population when you add in Spain's 46 million.

And letting doesn't quite describe the USA's relationship with others' military. The US didn't ask anyone about the costly adventures in Vietnam or Iraq - they sucked a few other countries into joining them in fruitless conflicts. (Not entirely fruitless, they've produced some poisonous economic, political and humanitarian consequences.)

Most of money the US military spends is on its considerable force projection capability not our several dubious adventures (which I agree with you in large part). We spend 2 to 3 times more money as a % of GDP than any nation in Europe, while they benefit tremendously by continued availability of inexpensive oil and to a large degree improved security (e.g. stopped genocides in South East Europe). Of course we all recognize that was somewhat of a Faustian deal made decades ago when we didn't want a well armed Europe (or Japan), but times haven't adjusted. Personally I think we get by fine with about half our military, pull back from Europe & ROK and the dozens of other places most Americans couldn't find on a map. The US would still have enough capability to deter, or defeat any other military by a large margin.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by chad

The word socialism is greatly manipulated by Americas political right. They connect it to USSR style communism, but thats a lie. These socialists do (not) want a dictator, they want democratic elections.

They may not want a dictator. That doesn't mean they won't get one.

But when most Americans refer to socialism, they are referring to countries like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, ex.ex.

Perhaps "Social Capitalists", is the best term to describe these countries.

These Social capitalist countries in Europe, outperform America in every way. They have better healthcare systems than America, lower federal deficits, lower national debt, they live longer, take longer vacations, scientists say they are happier than us, they have more freedom, they make more money, their economies are the same or better than Americas, they are cleaner, they recycle more, they put out less pollution, they have better schools, their students are smarter, their old people are better cared for, they have less hungry children, they have less poverty, they have less homeless people, ex.ex.ex.ex.

Their military capability is negligble, and they rely on the US for that. The unemployment rate in Europe is 11.5 percent, and several of the countries are going bankrupt.

Unemployment in Europe: get the figures for every country | News | guardian.co.uk

It would appear America is closer to having a dictator like government, than the "social capitalist" European countries.
You need $1 billion dollars to be president here, but in European countries the cost is much, much, much, much less.
Those European countries have more democracy than us, because anyone can be a leader there.



Also I said the "social capitalist" countries Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, ex.ex.
Your unemployment rate source is for (all) of Europe.

The fact is the "social capitalist" countries Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, ex.ex. outperform America in the things I listed.



Then you said, those countries military capability is negligible,
That is not true, can you list an enemy of theirs, that they can not beat in a war?
Or can you list an occasion, were they suffered negative effects, from not having a large enough military?

And in Switzerland every male under 30 years old, is required by law, to have a gun in their house. In Switzerland if you pull something on their streets, a young man comes out of his house, and puts a bullet inside of you. But in America your lucky, if a young man even calls the police if you are in trouble.

Their military's are strong enough, and their streets are also safer than America's.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You'll also find by comparisons, that wages in the US, for just about every field are higher than Europe, though usually not by much. International Average Salary Income Comparison They also have less disposable income, because of higher overall tax rates, though the difference isn't nearly as much as many Americans think it is because Americans get hit from every direction (local, country, state, fed SS, medicare, income etc) while Europeans tend to consolidate though tax rates. I also have to echo Harold's point, they've let another country bare the burden for most of their defense for the past 60+ years.

Social capitalist countries like Switzerland, Denmark, ex.ex. have better healthcare systems than America, lower federal deficits, lower national debt, they live longer, take longer vacations, scientists say they are happier than us, they have more freedom, they make more money, their economies are the same or better than Americas, they are cleaner, they recycle more, they put out less pollution, they have better schools, their students are smarter, their old people are better cared for, they have less hungry children, they have less poverty, they have less homeless people, ex.ex.

Communism is extreme Left. To europeans the usa democrat party is rather right wing, and the republicans belong to the extreme right.
The two party system of america is one that leaves little margin for the freethinker. It used to be "nigger" vs " ku klux klan" and in some regard it is still so.
But now even "niggers" start to think that obama is not really the guy they voted for. Americans are afraid of people who stand for progress.
The real neo-cons are the very people who voted for Obama. At least give the "boy" a chance to make it 8 consecutive years to prove what he promised.
It is not really easy for a white president to deal with the national debt reagan left behind with the paraphrased words "our debt's so huge by now, it can take care of itself."

How could any president, black, white, eskimo, deal with that mothofooko debt at face value? Get real man. What is his leverage? And do not 90 per cent of all americans get creeped out by people that outsmart em on national tv? Even democrat votees are scared of an educated porchmonkey. If I was american I would vote for the guy who did NOT implicitly call 47% of its denizens lowlifes on the dole and junkies and bums. Right wing people are conservatives who only long back to the old days of when a nigger president was still legally owned by all other white presidents. How would the founding fathers of the constitution regard this reli-racist nation that it has become.
Leave god out of fucking politics. There is no need for a USA sharia of reborn christians who believe in dinosaurs roaming with eve and adam. God says it himself in the bible that you should give the politician what is due to give him. And so you did give Reagan, Bush and Bush ii a blanc cheque that they very fucking much cashed alright. And now you are blaming obama that the economy is bankrupt?

Not fair, huh.

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You'll also find by comparisons, that wages in the US, for just about every field are higher than Europe, though usually not by much. International Average Salary Income Comparison They also have less disposable income, because of higher overall tax rates, though the difference isn't nearly as much as many Americans think it is because Americans get hit from every direction (local, country, state, fed SS, medicare, income etc) while Europeans tend to consolidate though tax rates. I also have to echo Harold's point, they've let another country bare the burden for most of their defense for the past 60+ years.

Social capitalist countries like Switzerland, Denmark, ex.ex. have better healthcare systems than America, lower federal deficits, lower national debt, they live longer, take longer vacations, scientists say they are happier than us, they have more freedom, they make more money, their economies are the same or better than Americas, they are cleaner, they recycle more, they put out less pollution, they have better schools, their students are smarter, their old people are better cared for, they have less hungry children, they have less poverty, they have less homeless people, ex.ex.

I refute one of those facts and provide a source, and all you can do it repeat almost word for word the same rant?

Do you really think this is a good way to carry out a conversation? Seriously?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by epidecus

What are your beliefs concerning leftist ideologies and its effective practices in the world? And by "the left side", I mean socialism, communism, and systems of the like. As oversimplified as it may sound to you, it still comes down to: Good or bad?

I would have normally been in favour of more capitalistic policies, but events have shown us that if we go to far down that road you end up with millions of people becoming homeless and without healthcare, so we need a way to reconcile this but remain competitive at the same time. So while there's nothing wrong with capitalist or even right wing policies in of themselves, it is vital that they find a way to ensure the most vunerable of society are protected. Normally what we would call left wing policies are more concerned with protecting the poor and vunerable, however they can also end up as a poverty trap with even well able people ending up depending on welfare and handouts because they have no incentive or motivation to find a way out. The problem is striking that perfect balance that allows the genuinely incapable to be protected and supported within a society and yet still pushing and driving those that are able to go and make something of their lives. So how about a bit of left and right wing collusion to come up with the right answers to the key questions for once rather than all the hostile rhetoric and back biting.

I remember watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics in England. When I saw how you all dedicated time, to praising your health care system, I was deeply touched.

Here in America 40,000 Americans die horrible deaths each year, because no one gives them health insurance. And all of Americas capitalists have fought for years, to literally let those people die. They attack any law to save those people.

And here in America we also have huge amounts of children, who don't get enough food to eat. And Americas capitalists also fight to stop these children from being fed. They are (literally) against Americas government, feeding hungry American children.



I believe that with capitalism, deficits and debt come around sometimes. And in times of deficits of debt, a country must change spending policies, so their government does not go bankrupt. But I hope England never becomes like America.

I dont think its normal for American's, to (not) care about the uninsured, or be against feeding their hungry children.

And I pray Englands people never become like Americans.

To Lynx_Fox,

I will list proof.

Originally Posted by Steve555

Communism is extreme Left. To europeans the usa democrat party is rather right wing, and the republicans belong to the extreme right.
The two party system of america is one that leaves little margin for the freethinker. It used to be "nigger" vs " ku klux klan" and in some regard it is still so.
But now even "niggers" start to think that obama is not really the guy they voted for. Americans are afraid of people who stand for progress.
The real neo-cons are the very people who voted for Obama. At least give the "boy" a chance to make it 8 consecutive years to prove what he promised.
It is not really easy for a white president to deal with the national debt reagan left behind with the paraphrased words "our debt's so huge by now, it can take care of itself."

How could any president, black, white, eskimo, deal with that mothofooko debt at face value? Get real man. What is his leverage? And do not 90 per cent of all americans get creeped out by people that outsmart em on national tv? Even democrat votees are scared of an educated porchmonkey. If I was american I would vote for the guy who did NOT implicitly call 47% of its denizens lowlifes on the dole and junkies and bums. Right wing people are conservatives who only long back to the old days of when a nigger president was still legally owned by all other white presidents. How would the founding fathers of the constitution regard this reli-racist nation that it has become.
Leave god out of fucking politics. There is no need for a USA sharia of reborn christians who believe in dinosaurs roaming with eve and adam. God says it himself in the bible that you should give the politician what is due to give him. And so you did give Reagan, Bush and Bush ii a blanc cheque that they very fucking much cashed alright. And now you are blaming obama that the economy is bankrupt?

Not fair, huh.

I believe you are using the n. word, and the word "boy" in a racist way.

Are you white?

I cant believe you are allowed to use those words.

I don't like being around that kind of trash.

Americans do not give a single shid about others when it comes to social security. This because of their so called "American dream" they deem very high.
It basically means that regardless of your genome and your social background and i.q. you can still become a Rockefeller. The Forest Gump syndrome.

Americans do not realize that achieving the american dream is merely the equivalent of winning a fucking lottery. And it is THOSE people who did win that lottery who think they
did it all by themselves. But it always turns out to be a combination of good looks, quick wits and their brown apprentice arms all the way up to their master's anus.
The fullfillment of the american dream is 90 per cent about nepotism and 10 per cent luck. The american dream is an illusion. All big shot black rap artists move to Hollywood and do not give a fuck about the projects no more, etc etc etc.
Usa is barbaric in its "indian caste system". The whiter you are the better, except for albino's of course.

Originally Posted by Steve555

Americans do not give a single shid about others when it comes to social security. This because of their so called "American dream" they deem very high.
It basically means that regardless of your genome and your social background and i.q. you can still become a Rockefeller. The Forest Gump syndrome.

Americans do not realize that achieving the american dream is merely the equivalent of winning a fucking lottery. And it is THOSE people who did win that lottery who think they
did it all by themselves. But it always turns out to be a combination of good looks, quick wits and their brown apprentice arms all the way up to their master's anus.
The fullfillment of the american dream is 90 per cent about nepotism and 10 per cent luck. The american dream is an illusion. All big shot black rap artists move to Hollywood and do not give a fuck about the projects no more, etc etc etc.
Usa is barbaric in its "indian caste system". The whiter you are the better, except for albino's of course.

Other forum members may tolerate your racist cursing, but I don't like that kind of trash.

Stay away from me !!!

Originally Posted by Steve555

Americans do not give a single......

Your language just earned you a time out. Be civil in these forums.

Originally Posted by Steve555

Americans do not give a single shid about others when it comes to social security. This because of their so called "American dream" they deem very high.
It basically means that regardless of your genome and your social background and i.q. you can still become a Rockefeller. The Forest Gump syndrome.

Steve555,

Being an American I know some of us, sometimes use those words as a joke. I believe you may have done that on accident, thinking your with your friends cracking jokes. Perhaps you had too many drinks/puffs.

But I take great offense from your disrespectful remarks, you are in a public place.

Its sad that you use those words, because your other words contain great substance.
But I will not even read your posts, because they contain those racist curse words.
I wish you would delete those words.
If you delete those words, I will delete much of what I said about you.

Its sad that you destroy the great substance of your words, with that disrespectful racist cursing.

Delete those words, (or) stay away from me !!!

Response to Lynx_Fox's post #14. I apologize for this post being somewhat long, I just wanted to be thorough. Note: the other social-capitalists countries, will also beat America the same way.


America vs. Switzerland (each category will use the same source, and be in per capita terms)


1.) National debt to GDP
USA- 103 United States Government Debt To GDP
Swi- 48.6 Switzerland Government Debt To GDP

2.) Economy
USA- ranks 9th in the world in nominal GDP per capita. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Swi- ranks 8th in the world in terms of GDP per capita. Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3.) Wealth
-In 2011, Switerland was ranked as being the wealthiest country in the world in per capita terms (with 'wealth' being defined to include both financial and non-financial assets)
Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (located in economy section)

4.) Income distribution (a very important economic and social figure) Income inequality - Canada and world results
USA- grade D
Swi- grade B

5.) average life expectancy 2010 Average Life Expectancy by Gender, Race and Country | Suite101
USA- ranks #49
Swi- ranks #10

6.) Happiest people Table: The World's Happiest Countries - Forbes.com
USA- ranks #14
Swi- ranks #8

7.) Average household income
USA- $50,233.00 USD Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Swi- $100,000 USD Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (located in economy section.)

8.) Co2 pollution levels per capita Carbon Dioxide Per Capita > Pollution statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster
(The higher the number, the less co2 put out per capita)
USA- #1
Swi- #22

9.) Poverty levels List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USA- 15.1
Swi- 6.9

10.) Children living in poverty child poverty by country « EVERYDAYTHINGSETC
USA- 21.64
Swi- 9.43

11.) Murder rates
USA- 5.6 or 5.9 Murder Rate by Country Reference. Compare reviews & ratings.
Swi- 0.9 and 2.9 Murder Rate by Country Reference. Compare reviews & ratings.

12.) smartest students World education rankings: which country does best at reading, maths and science? | News | guardian.co.uk
USA- 14th
Swi- 11th
Switzerland's students score higher in all subjects.

13.) Statutory minimum employment leave (mandatory paid vacation time) List of statutory minimum employment leave by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USA- none
Swi- At least 20 work days, plus 12–16 public holidays

14.) Unemployment rates
USA- 7.8 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate
Swi- 2.8 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/swit...mployment-rate


Final score from above,
America- 0
Switzerland- 14


The other social-capitalist European countries will also beat America, when all aspects of debt, economy, life span, pollution levels ex.ex. are looked at.
But to make things simple, America will solidly loose every comparison, because America's national debt is so high.

One can try to manipulate and say, "these countries have high taxes", but you can't manipulate around the above facts.
And remember countries like Switzerland do things like, "pay for peoples college education" ex.ex. These high tax rates give those people government services, like paying for college costs ex.ex., and this saves citizens huge amounts of money.

Before anyone cites "high taxes", look at those countries standards of living.


How did Switzerland give America the above severe beating? My personal belief is, liberals and conservatives work together in that country.
Switzerland is more conservative, than any of you would ever believe.
But conservatives in Switzerland, actually understand and care about national debt. And their conservatives respect and feed hungry children.

Yes Switzerland is doing well. It's also a nation smaller than New York with many unique characteristics.

You'll find average US income is greater than just about every other nation in Europe. And where is counts Switzerland still behind the US for disposable income: http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate...rland-salaries

You'd be completely right about income inequality--that's been the most likely thing to bring nations down and the US ranks with many 3rd world unstable nations right now. It's damn unhealthy for our society.

Though you might like some of their standards...guns for all, a low corporate tax rate, pretty much no labor laws, no immigration etc.

liberals and conservatives work together in that country.

Most places that might be true, especially in recent years.

I'd be careful with the education rankings, it's a very abused statistic we trod out. When you look at the international test, you find it's like getting an A- for a grade but still being criticized for being in the lower half of the class. The US education system is still pretty darn good on average--it would be even better if we stopped using local taxes for our schools which reinforces cycles of poverty and denied opportunity for many of our most disadvantaged citizens.

Lastly you'll find similar to individual income equality, there's huge differences between the States--quality of life for example is MUCH better in a place like Connecticut than in Mississippi. I don't see it done very often by comparing Europeans Countries to US States and EU to the US are better comparisons for many things.

Also, when it comes to America's (internal) international law enforcement. Switzerland enforces certain international laws, better than America's (entire) local, state, and federal governments combined.

The following link explains this,

George W. Bush cancels Switzerland visit over fears of arrest on torture charges | Mail Online


You gotta respect the Swiss. The Swiss don't play.

If anyone's seriously interested in inequality of health, income or other indicators, you really can't go past Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com as in introduction to the topic.

The book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is fascinating reading. (But it's a bit depressing for US, UK, Oz readers. We don't come out too well.)

There are two main takeaways. The immortal quote "If Americans want to live the American dream, they should move to Denmark." is one. You just need a quick glance at the social mobility graph to get that one.

The second one is really interesting. It doesn't matter how you reach more equality of incomes. Japan and Sweden are the 2 best on this scale. Japan does it with a narrow range of incomes, low taxation, bare bones welfare state. Sweden does it with huge ranges of income from least to most and offsets it with progressive taxation and redistribution through a comprehensive welfare state. (And this also works for the differences in individual American states.)

Hoover
"We have, in fact, a special social system of our own. We have made it ourselves from materials brought in revolt from conditions in Europe. We have lived it; we constantly improve it; we have seldom tried to define it. It abhors autocracy and does not argue with it, but fights it. It is not capitalism, or socialism, or syndicalism, not a cross breed of them. Like most Americans, I refuse to be damned by anybody's world-classification of it, such as "capitalism," "plutocracy," "proletariat" or "middle class," or any other, or to any kind of compartment that is based on the assumption of some group dominating somebody else.

The social force in which I am interested is far higher and far more precious a thing than all these. It springs from something infinitely more enduring; it springs from the one source of human progress-that each individual shall be given the chance and stimulation for development of the best with which he has been endowed in heart and mind; it is the sole source of progress; it is American individualism.

The rightfulness of our individualism can rest either on philosophic, political, economic, or spiritual grounds. It can rest on the ground of being the only safe avenue to further human progress."

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Yes Switzerland is doing well. It's also a nation smaller than New York with many unique characteristics.

You'll find average US income is greater than just about every other nation in Europe. And where is counts Switzerland still behind the US for disposable income: Switzerland - Salaries | ExpatFocus.com

You'd be completely right about income inequality--that's been the most likely thing to bring nations down and the US ranks with many 3rd world unstable nations right now. It's damn unhealthy for our society.

Though you might like some of their standards...guns for all, a low corporate tax rate, pretty much no labor laws, no immigration etc.

liberals and conservatives work together in that country.

Most places that might be true, especially in recent years.

I'd be careful with the education rankings, it's a very abused statistic we trod out. When you look at the international test, you find it's like getting an A- for a grade but still being criticized for being in the lower half of the class. The US education system is still pretty darn good on average--it would be even better if we stopped using local taxes for our schools which reinforces cycles of poverty and denied opportunity for many of our most disadvantaged citizens.

Lastly you'll find similar to individual income equality, there's huge differences between the States--quality of life for example is MUCH better in a place like Connecticut than in Mississippi. I don't see it done very often by comparing Europeans Countries to US States and EU to the US are better comparisons for many things.

You speak of population size effecting the data.

So lets do this,

Lets combine Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Austria, and Luxemburg into one group.

These liberal-social-capitalist countries as group, will (annihilate) America in the 14 categories I listed.
America would lose.




Or lets look at larger countries like England and Germany.

America's debt to GDP is much higher than Englands or Germanys (this is a huge factor in comparing countries.)

In categories like economy, unemployment rates, and income. Germany, England, and America will all be very close. I think America will win some, and lose some.

But once you bring in categories like poverty rates, student performance, life expectancy, ex.ex.ex.

I will bet America will loose in the comparison.

And with all respects, whats more important, a country having a few extra dollars, or a country having less hungry children?



Americas political right, seems to speak of America doing better, than most other countries, like European countries and Canada. But I will bet its a lie.
Americas debt to GDP is higher than those countries. (and Americas right, conveniently leaves out this data.)

And Americas political right, also leaves out other important categories when comparing America to other countries.

I plan to add Germany, England, (and Canada) to the above America vs. Switzerland post above.



When I first started writing this, I realized that I should thank you, for your criticisms of things I post. I am at a loss for words, but thank you.

Have a good one,
Chad.



--------(note to self, sorry.) Add England, (Canada), and Germany to the above, America vs. Switzerland. Add prison population, fuel usage per capita, water usage per capita, recycling per capita, value of currency, credit rating, standard of living, ex.ex.ex.

Could America loose to France and Italy? maybe not

It abhors autocracy and does not argue with it, but fights it. It is not capitalism, or socialism, or syndicalism, not a cross breed of them.

I don't really know whether this was true or not at the time Hoover said this. Seeing as it was 1922 it might have been a nice thought but the US was already on the path to the Great Depression by then. Personally, I see it as a continuation, if not a relic, of the 19th century romanticism that was so common in the early part of the 20th century - and not just in the USA.

It's even less true now. He might have believed the individualism dream - the hard-working sole business owner on small town Main Street - but power was already well into the hands of Wall Street by then (when substantial parts had already been appropriated into the velcro hands of the robber barons). It was Wall Street, not the local industries and small banks that brought down the world's economies. Not a failure of individualistic energetic entrepreneurs or their employees in pursuing that dream. They were powerless against the power of Wall Street to ruin anyone and everyone, in the US and everywhere else.

With corporations now acquiring the legal status of citizens in important matters, the USA doesn't look anything like the aspirational dream Hoover was alluding to. The modern day equivalents of the old-style Wall Street scammers and the individual robber barons are now the faceless executives of immense international conglomerates. They're much, much bigger and they have a lot more power than even Hoover could have imagined.

There's not much joy in avoiding an autocracy when powerful entities in your society can cooperate to influence or entirely subvert the expressed democratic will of the electorate. At least an autocrat is a single visible target for rotten eggs and tomatoes. The fuel company executives are near invisible, as are the bankers and the other behind the scenes manipulators.

Chad I only disputed the income. If it wasn't for the relatively low degree of economic mobility in the US, many of us wouldn't mind the higher average income of the US in exchange for greater economic inequality that we currently have.

Why arent' you including Greece and Spain, just for fun--they fit your liberal-social-capitalist definition better than Switzerland.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Chad I only disputed the income. If it wasn't for the relatively low degree of economic mobility in the US, many of us wouldn't mind the higher average income of the US in exchange for greater economic inequality that we currently have.

Why arent' you including Greece and Spain, just for fun--they fit your liberal-social-capitalist definition better than Switzerland.

I was only including major/highly industrialized countries.

But I love Greece and Spain very much.

Spain, just for fun--they fit your liberal-social-capitalist definition better than Switzerland.

Spain is really interesting from the current financial mess perspective. I've seen a couple of commentators saying that it's a bit rich for Germany to get stuck into Spain about government debt. Spain's government debt to GDP ratio is markedly better than Germany's. It's not government spending that got them into the mess. It's the real estate bubble. And what drives real estate bubbles? Banks lending on silly valuations.

Originally Posted by adelady

Spain, just for fun--they fit your liberal-social-capitalist definition better than Switzerland.

Spain is really interesting from the current financial mess perspective. I've seen a couple of commentators saying that it's a bit rich for Germany to get stuck into Spain about government debt. Spain's government debt to GDP ratio is markedly better than Germany's. It's not government spending that got them into the mess. It's the real estate bubble. And what drives real estate bubbles? Banks lending on silly valuations.

Spain was also in receipt of EU money for many many years to improve infrastructure and bring up living standards, until the EU is expanded again from it's current size Spain is actually still having to put in less than it gets out from the EU budget. Also living standards and prices have risen, where as 15 - 20 years ago they still had large sections of their population living in poverty in rural areas much of that has now changed with the result each of their citizens now requires more money to live on and commands a greater share of the nations overall wealth. Germany by comparison is in rude health because after 'absorbing' the huge costs of rebuilding former East Germany after reunification they learned how to manage their spending and teach the former East to adopt former West German standards and way of working. You also have to remember that before the fall of the wall West Gemany was already by far the most powerful economy in Europe, so now with the rebuilt east as well they're even stronger and effectively propping up the whole of the Eurozone. Also it's only in the last 3 or 4 years we are starting to see the beginnings of the property booms that began over 2 decades ago in the rest of Europe, with Berlin still being one the cheapest 1st world capital cities to live in.

So whilst you can say countries like Spain are suffering because they 'maxed out', used all their financial resources, investements and growth potential, Germany is only really beginning it's growth cycle with years yet to go. This is real difference, the truth is this could and would be quickly born out if the Eurozone were to collapse (with countries reverting to their individual state currencies) and we would see Germany's currency nearly double immediately whilst that of Spain would probrably experience a 70 to 80 percent devaluation!

But to be fair, to take either Spain or Germany as a direct comparison to the United States would be wrong, the financial system and setups are just to different and the US is considerably larger in size. To get a more even comparison for America if your thinking about Europe you have to go with the whole EU. For one thing lets look at the way the money is spread around, right now you have richer and poorer countries in the EU just like you have richer and poorer states in the US. So to compare any of these countries countries directely against America (Switzerland included) will always give misleading results. I made the point about Switzerland with reference to Chad's earlier posts, though not part of the EU it is part of the EEA (European Economic Area), which means for all intensive purposes they have the same privileges as all other EU member states, apart from Bulgaria and Romania, for whom Swizerland actually has more privileges, but I digress slightly.

The point being that now the EU is trying to do what the US has already been doing for much of it's history and that is to share some of the wealth of the richest countries to help the poorer ones to improve and increase their standards of living. It is this commonality that both the US and EU now share of collective resposibility for the poorest and richest states/countries that make for a far more suitable comparison of financial responsibility, competetiveness, social policy and capitalism, than any country by country basis.

Originally Posted by adelady

Spain, just for fun--they fit your liberal-social-capitalist definition better than Switzerland.

Spain is really interesting from the current financial mess perspective. I've seen a couple of commentators saying that it's a bit rich for Germany to get stuck into Spain about government debt. Spain's government debt to GDP ratio is markedly better than Germany's. It's not government spending that got them into the mess. It's the real estate bubble. And what drives real estate bubbles? Banks lending on silly valuations.

Lady, America is all about American Individualism.

It is not banks that do the lending based on silly evaluations. It is governments and government entities that do it through government backed loans, bundled mortgage security purchases and to big to fail policies.

Originally Posted by chad

I was only including major/highly industrialized countries..

Ya I got that....but I'd simply point out that there's quite a few US states that don't meet that criteria which are being compared with them--not really a fair comparison.

Its light-hearted banter time:

~:~
Sidenote: Ive lived and worked in several countries, including the US And European, my personal experience makes it a no contest non-issue, the US is the slave labor of industrialized countries. What I want is to see a propaganda campaign for Malasian sweat shop slave labor as effective as the one in the US, so that people working 14 hours a day 7 days a week can debate how their conditions are much better than people in those other countries (Up till one of them actually goes and works in another country, fall to his knees and weeps realizing how much he has been rapped his whole life, of course if he goes back no one will take his experience seriously "he look, sure were paid 10 cents an hour, but the president is paid a quadrillion so that puts OUR average wage much higher than those socialistic countries, plus they pay taxes to get the health care that we dont have access to, but we pay no taxes, so were better off, instead of taxes we pay for private insurance for the whole time we are not sick, aint that great or what?). Yes I want to go on a site where sweat shop workers argue about how great they have it.


But to get back to the OP, look at banana republics, banana corporations want to exploit people and resources, and when people dont want to be exploited and want to control the resource so they can benefit, the US sends General Butler and his marine corps to slap some sense into the locals and put a United Fruit approved dictator. In the old days they didnt need a reason, they just did it, wave that flag and kill the natives boy, and wave that flag some more son, but later on, it was better PR to invent a reason.

Also Left-Right is a crappy dichotomy. Social-Democracies are probably more democratic (and less militaristic too) than the US, but then they say ~hah but they're lefty and that means North Korea!~ (which is anti-democratic militarist hierarchy)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfrQalpmdqk

Also, if you read War is a Racket, you will notice that in hindsight Butler didnt fight and risk is blood for "The Nation" but for the petty interest of those in positions of influence.
reaganomics-ronald-reagan-trickle-down-economics-demotivational-poster.jpg


I think that social democracies are better in some respects, but they still have a long way to go, since they have also inherited the monetary system's conflicts of interest which makes them vulnerable to corruption/concentration of power/etc, along with relics of closed opaque hierarchic institutions.
~:~

back to normal programming

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You'll also find by comparisons, that wages in the US, for just about every field are higher than Europe, though usually not by much. International Average Salary Income Comparison ... .

looking at your linked data
the "working class jobs" pay lower in the usa, meanwhile, tha salary for a general physician is almost double that of most countries listed

and the lower paid blue collar worker gets to pay those outrageous salaries out of his/her pocket, or buy expensive medical insurance---------without that (now mandatory?) insurance counted as a deduction, in your link, the data is skewed.

In some cases of course, but given the majority of jobs are at the lower end and the average still near the top should tell you something. Even basic jobs such as chambermaids, carpenters, fire fighters, office clerk, hotel receptionist....probably all of them show the US in the top five. I think you'd also find the income disparity reflected in these figures as well..the low skilled jobs paying a less by wider fractions than the high skill jobs. Most Americans are ok with that--education and skills training should count for a lot and have a big payoff.

You're right about the health care cost--its part of the high taxes for Europeans and counts against disposable income, while it probably doesn't count against disposable income in the American numbers.

it probably doesn't count against disposable income in the American numbers.

I haven't checked but that seems barmy to me. And it might seriously distort economic perceptions - even at the professional level.

I just remembered something a bit off course for this topic. I sometimes had to deal with people in the past who'd got themselves into serious financial/taxation trouble. They were high earners (some of them extremely high) but they'd got in over their heads by subscribing to financial advice gurus - but they were all from the USA. Biiiiig mistake.

They regarded themselves as financial whiz-kids for doing this, but they'd never understood that mortgage interest was tax deductible in the US and not in Australia. So the whole 'sophisticated' concept of borrowing to simultaneously get a bigger, better house and get a financial advantage just didn't apply. Of course, their unaffordable tax bills were all the fault of the "jack-booted public servants" and/or the tax accountants who had to deliver the bad news rather than their own financial mismanagement, but that was par for the course for this kind of problem client. They'd seriously swallowed the whole comparison on the basis of presumed similarity - but the similarity just wasn't there.

Which gets us back to health insurance. Americans like to think of themselves as having individual 'choice' in health costs, but this is in an environment where you have no choices other than what's available within the most expensive system in the world (apart from Malta 16.5% v. USA 16.2% GDP). And you don't even get the best health results in the world. It might be worthwhile if you had the longest life expectancy, the best infant and maternal mortality, the best health prevention and maintenance outcomes in the world - but you don't. Nowhere near the best. (For infant mortality there are 49 countries with better outcomes, maternal mortality, 23 countries, and you certainly don't live longer than countries with better systems.) Spending more and getting less looks a pretty poor bargain to those of us outside the US bubble.

I do wonder if the fears of civil breakdown and war weighs heavier in Europe and "socialist" style agendas are a consequence? The fear of social problems like ongoing poverty and lack of opportunities festering into civil unrest may be underlying the acceptance of State involvement in areas of life like health care, high minimum wages, welfare support and the like. The breakdown of the European Union having serious and unmanageable consequences is a fear that prompts bailouts with conditions that, on the face of it would be otherwise unacceptable. It certainly appears like bailing out nations that are spending big on state welfare and generous pensions is foreign and incomprehensible to a great many Americans. (Bearing in mind I'm viewing America from outside and perhaps not fully understanding) - it seems like nations falling into disorder and civil war and disputes spilling over to neighboring States are not things Americans have recent direct experience of. Given the US's military superiority that has as close to All Theater Domination position as it's possible to get, war and unrest are not fears deeply embedded in the American psyche.

For the US, wars have been offshore ones, generally (leaving aside the Soviets) against opponents who had little or no credible capacity to threaten occupation or invasion, or even punitive action against the US directly, engaged in for the sake of US commercial and strategic interests internationally, not out of real fear of enemy soldiers marching down it's streets. In Europe there may be a strong element of populism to socialist policies, but I think the Socialist bent across Europe is about reducing social divisiveness out of fear things will get out of hand and descend into chaos and warfare. It's a serious fear that connects with social issues and it's a fear that may be underestimated from within the borders of Planet America.

Australia, where I live probably did have fears of civil unrest - union activism being very strong for a long time early last century - however it probably gets as much of it's (compared to the US) Socialist streak from a history of State sponsored industrial development throughout the early part of last century. Not directly out of socialist ideology but as a consequence of having a small population within a geographically large nation. Major infrastructure like roads, railroads and electricity supply were seen as necessary to develop industrial, agricultural and other business opportunities but not seen as opportunities for profit in and of themselves. These were not likely to be built at all without being planned and financed at government level.

For a long time even the inefficiencies of a strongly unionised workforce had an unspoken element of social welfare - jobs with better than minimum wages verged on being a civil right and inefficient workers still earned enough to own a home and support their families and feed their earnings into a growing consumer economy. The inefficiencies were tolerated. That latter element has all but gone now I should note; direct welfare, including 'middle class welfare' grew in it's place. Populism is the greater influence now - I'm not sure current day mainstream politics have much strength of ideology or real concerns about greater long term objectives at their core. It's about marketing and spin to win over a public that's been spoon fed convenient illusions about what matters and what doesn't.

For a long time even the inefficiencies of a strongly unionised workforce had an unspoken element of social welfare

Nothing unspoken about it. 1907, The Basic Wage case - Harvester Judgment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In defining a 'fair and reasonable wage', Higgins, without explicit acknowledgment, employed Pope LeoXIII's Rerum Novarum of 1891, an open letter to all the bishops that addressed the condition of the working classes. Higgins ruled that remuneration "must be enough to support the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort."

Here's a paper that looks at American health care cost. Individual policies at $215/month, with wide variation depending on State.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8214.pdf

I agree it doesnt' seem American's don't get their money's worth, but it's hard to parse effectiveness from lifestyle. Americans are fat, eat high fat diets, still smoke too much, sit around too much (personal remind to go walking in the rain tonight...hehe) and often choose to bring severely unhealthy children into the world out of religious objections to abortion. Health insurance doesn't really address those life-choice issues--makes me wonder if some Eastern philosophies about healthcare might be better--my understanding is many Chinese docs get paid only while you're healthy--not sure how true that is.

Originally Posted by adelady

... Spending more and getting less looks a pretty poor bargain to those of us outside the US bubble.

It don't look so good from the inside neither------------It probably only looks real good to the AMA, AHA, and insurance companies.
(and, well, screw the rest of us)

This article highlights the heath issue a bit. An international study that finds American cancer survival it the best in the world on average, but varies considerably by state and demographic. It's a similar theme of the inequality issue-- better on average but considerably income and State differences. Health care in the US isn't proactive--it's reactive. The attempts to shut down women's healthcare centers in many states are making that even more true.
Cancer Survival Rates Vary by Country

Health insurance doesn't really address those life-choice issues

But there are plenty of other places with pretty poor health/lifestyle profiles. I know Scotland and Finland (?? somewhere northernish) both needed really strong public health campaigns to get heart/stroke numbers back down out of the stratosphere. The country that invented the deep-fried Mars Bar still has places where you have to be pretty quick to insist that your pizza order be nuked in the microwave rather than deep fried.

Australians are catching up on the obesity front, but our cavalier attitude to the dangers of skin cancer has taken decades to respond to public health campaigns. And still some people use tanning beds! Our alcohol consumption and our previous road fatality statistics were pretty awful until we got started on them.

I think the real difference in the statistics is that routine US healthcare is so expensive that too many people avoid medical consultations when they have the initial signs of a problem. So you finish up with more cases that are more serious and more expensive to treat than the same patient would have been in a country where the initial costs, of a normal doctor's visit and ordinary prescription medication, are nil or easily affordable. (My endocrinologist did a couple of stints in US hospitals many years ago. It broke his heart seeing diabetics come into the ER all the time with gangrenous limbs and failing eyesight and coma. And all because they couldn't afford to keep up with buying insulin prescriptions. They'd get it made up and try to eke it out by reduced doses, or they'd try to do without for days or weeks at a time. The cost of the hospital treatments was many, many times the costs of providing cheap, adequate insulin daily. The consequences - amputations and blindness leading to being too disabled to work were awful as well as being an additional extra cost to governments. Too frequent, unnecessary deaths were more awful again.)

Government anything ads which try to tell people how to live, even when completely supported by science, are offensive to many Americans--they'll yell out "Who the heck do they think they are--almost by instinct." It might be a level of automatic distrust that's hard for outsiders to imagine.

many people avoid medical consultations when they have the initial signs of a problem. So you finish up with more cases that are more serious and more expensiv

Not so sure about that. If that were true cancer survival rates would be worse not better than every other nation. The 80% or so of Americans who need it get help and that help is among the best and the world---another 10% or so are young enough not to need insurance they don't have but now are going to have to share the load to support elderly. The last 10% who need it but don't have insurance aren't going to catch their ailments early---there the ones who show up in emergency rooms often too late to save them from preventable illnesses.

You think Australians don't?

Americans have acquired the notion that they're the exemplars for individualist ideas and behaviours. It's true they talk about it more than any of the rest of us. But you weren't here when one of our former prime ministers proposed that Australians should be issued identity numbers modelled on the way US Social Security numbers are handled. The blazing fury from my household along with everyone else, regardless of political affiliation, was something that mystified the Americans we knew.

"How dare you!" was our response. Their attitude was "What's the problem?" Privacy, individuality, my right to choose what I do and don't tell a bureaucracy etc. etc. Why should we accept this kind of government heavy-handedness just because Americans do? But Americans really didn't understand that we saw this as government interference and invasion of our privacy - and we, all of us, the whole country, refused to go down that path. The idea died a quick and merciful death.

We still have no universal identifier. Medicare numbers are for health matters. Tax numbers are for business and employment. And neither of those are linked or even recorded for our enrolment to vote. It's illegal for anyone outside the tax office or the health department to use either of them as sorting categories or as any other kind of identifiers for employees or clients or customers.

Sorry, got carried away there. Government public health messages?

Australians are as resistant as any others. Look at the UK in relation to the fat content of their diets. Oz beachgoers are still a bit too carefree about skin cancer, but employers of outdoor workers now provide shady hats and long sleeved shirts without a quibble even though too many workers are also a bit cavalier about the risks.

Our state and federal governments just put out messages and keep on putting them out. When people don't change their behaviour, they've still absorbed the message. So we get seatbelt and helmet regulations for road safety. And we find that the numbers of people not wearing seatbelts in fatalities are out of proportion to the general compliance with the laws. Same thing for steadily reducing the permitted alcohol limits.

Not surprised either way. My impressions are ignorant about Australians. Know they pride themselves on individualism--mostly a caricature popularized by Crocodile Dundee and the movie Australia etc, but that imagine seems deeply inconsistent with giving up individual's guns, which in the States would be Civil war (I kid you not and I'd be on the gun side defending the Constitution like I always have). Goes to show that individualism gets expressed in many different ways.

Guns are different. Everybody had them when we needed them on farms. You have to be able to shoot sick or injured animals when the nearest vet is hours away. But it wasn't a general thing, it was just an occupation based and country hunters based thing. Remember there's not a lot of US or European style hunting here. No bear or deer (no ungulates at all) or big cats and such, only feral animals and kangaroos really, apart from duck shooting. Certainly not a citizenship thing.

When the government acted to restrict gun ownership and associated rules after the Port Arthur massacre, only a few gun nuts objected. And they were mainly people who'd immersed themselves in US based magazines and US style attitudes to violence - easy to tell when their letters to the editor quoted all manner of extracts from things that had nothing to do with Australia. It had very little impact on the friends I had who were members of gun clubs. They just chipped in for upgraded secure storage at the clubs and that was about it.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Its light-hearted banter time:

~:~
Sidenote: Ive lived and worked in several countries, including the US And European, my personal experience makes it a no contest non-issue, the US is the slave labor of industrialized countries. What I want is to see a propaganda campaign for Malasian sweat shop slave labor as effective as the one in the US, so that people working 14 hours a day 7 days a week can debate how their conditions are much better than people in those other countries (Up till one of them actually goes and works in another country, fall to his knees and weeps realizing how much he has been rapped his whole life, of course if he goes back no one will take his experience seriously "he look, sure were paid 10 cents an hour, but the president is paid a quadrillion so that puts OUR average wage much higher than those socialistic countries, plus they pay taxes to get the health care that we dont have access to, but we pay no taxes, so were better off, instead of taxes we pay for private insurance for the whole time we are not sick, aint that great or what?). Yes I want to go on a site where sweat shop workers argue about how great they have it.


But to get back to the OP, look at banana republics, banana corporations want to exploit people and resources, and when people dont want to be exploited and want to control the resource so they can benefit, the US sends General Butler and his marine corps to slap some sense into the locals and put a United Fruit approved dictator. In the old days they didnt need a reason, they just did it, wave that flag and kill the natives boy, and wave that flag some more son, but later on, it was better PR to invent a reason.

Also Left-Right is a crappy dichotomy. Social-Democracies are probably more democratic (and less militaristic too) than the US, but then they say ~hah but they're lefty and that means North Korea!~ (which is anti-democratic militarist hierarchy)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfrQalpmdqk

Also, if you read War is a Racket, you will notice that in hindsight Butler didnt fight and risk is blood for "The Nation" but for the petty interest of those in positions of influence.
reaganomics-ronald-reagan-trickle-down-economics-demotivational-poster.jpg


I think that social democracies are better in some respects, but they still have a long way to go, since they have also inherited the monetary system's conflicts of interest which makes them vulnerable to corruption/concentration of power/etc, along with relics of closed opaque hierarchic institutions.
~:~

back to normal programming

You said, Left-Right is a crappy dichotomy.


I don't think you realize the difference, between a government like America's, and government like Germany's.

And I don't think you realize the difference, between a corporate US republican, and a US democrat.

And it also seems that you don't realize, how much more danger the world is in, when US republicans are in power.
You don't seem to know, that the US republicans are a "corporate propaganda group." I heard someone say, "that Hitler's propaganda team leader, would have been jealous of the results, this US republican propaganda team gets."

When you say theres no difference, between the left and right. Thats like saying theres no difference, between the sun and moon.


Look at the difference between Germany's and America's actions, in the last few years.

Germany joined the Kyoto protocol.
But corporate republican GW Bush, said global warming was not happening, and he would not allow the US, to join the Kyoto protocol.

Germany did not want to attack Iraq, because they knew Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11.
But corporate republican GW Bush and his White House, told 935 documented lies about Iraq, and then attacked Iraq.

And you (don't realize) that if the US democrats were in power, America would have joined the Kyoto protocol, and (not) attacked Iraq.


Look at the dangers of global warming, and realize that the US, is the worlds #2 releaser of CO2. Americas refusal to join the Kyoto protocol, may have caused unthinkable dangers to this planet.

And then look at the 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed, by the US republicans. Just imagine how many new terrorists were created by that act. These US republican made terrorists, may one day set off a bomb in a train station around were you live.


Your saying there is no difference between the right and left.

Then your saying theres no difference, between joining the Kyoto protocol, and (not) joining the Kyoto protocol.
And your saying there no difference between attacking Iraq, and (not) attacking Iraq.

And let me say it again, the US democrats would have joined the Kyoto protocol, and (not) attacked Iraq.


And these US republicans are also jeopardizing, every economy on this whole planet. The US economy is so large, that it effects the rest of the worlds economies. And US republicans are currently greatly enlarging Americas national debt. In the last few decades, these republicans have raised Americas national debt, from around 65% to GDP, to 99% to GDP.

And now theres a new republican in town, named Mitt Romney. Romney wants to add around $10 trillion more dollars, to Americas national debt, with tax cuts, and extra military spending.

If Romney is able to add, his $10 trillion dollars to Americas national debt, what will the US debt to GDP be?

It seems it will bring US debt to GDP, to over 150%.

What happens to the worlds economies, when the US debt to GDP, is over 150%?

And once again, if US democrats were in power, the US debt to GDP, would be around 65%.


Reread the above, and then imagine a world without the US republicans in power. That world would be much safer, and much more stable.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Not surprised either way. My impressions are ignorant about Australians. Know they pride themselves on individualism--mostly a caricature popularized by Crocodile Dundee and the movie Australia etc, but that imagine seems deeply inconsistent with giving up individual's guns, which in the States would be Civil war (I kid you not and I'd be on the gun side defending the Constitution like I always have). Goes to show that individualism gets expressed in many different ways.

And most americans who own guns own them for protection, if need be, against anyone... local, state and federal government/employees included. This is one of the most beautiful things about america. It is a testament to the founding fathers of america.

realize that the US, is a world leader in CO2 release

That hasn't been true for a few years. China has passed us.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

realize that the US, is a world leader in CO2 release

That hasn't been true for a few years. China has passed us.

I thought when I said, "the US is a world leader", that meant just a leader, not the leader. I edited my post and said "the #2 releaser."

And China is letting out a lot more carbon than I thought. The following link from 2009, shows, that China has surpassed the USA in a massive way.


Which countries produce the most CO2? | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Originally Posted by chad

You said, and what do you think are the motives for the United States' strong militaristic opposition to such governments in history.........


I think Americas strong opposition to these governments of the past, was caused by our culture of freedom. Countries like the USSR had military dictators, they even built walls so their people could not leave. I would guess the CIA fought these countries, because they did not want a (dictator) coming to America.

Today most Americans are scared of socialism, but I believe many of them, are actually scared of a dictator.


Socialism means the working class has all the power.
Pure capitalism causes the rich to have all the power.

Socialism the politicians have all the power. The workers have no more power in one system than the other. They never have any power. Look at China. Do those workers seem really empowered to you? Did the workers in the USSR seem highly empowered to you?

However, workers can be empowered. It happens by moderating the system. Either system. In capitalism you need a minimum wage and it needs to be enforced to the point of using protective tariffs against any foreign lower wages (a tariff exactly equal to the difference in wage, no higher, and no lower.) In socialism, I'm not sure, but I think you mostly just have to make sure the people have power over their government, rather than the government having all the power.

Originally Posted by Steve555

Americans do not give a single shid about others when it comes to social security. This because of their so called "American dream" they deem very high.
It basically means that regardless of your genome and your social background and i.q. you can still become a Rockefeller. The Forest Gump syndrome.

Americans do not realize that achieving the american dream is merely the equivalent of winning a ####ing lottery. And it is THOSE people who did win that lottery who think they
did it all by themselves. But it always turns out to be a combination of good looks, quick wits and their brown apprentice arms all the way up to their master's anus.
The fullfillment of the american dream is 90 per cent about nepotism and 10 per cent luck. The american dream is an illusion. All big shot black rap artists move to Hollywood and do not give a #### about the projects no more, etc etc etc.
Usa is barbaric in its "indian caste system". The whiter you are the better, except for albino's of course.

It is definitely true that many Americans who shouldn't, honestly believe they'll become rich someday. They'll start a successful rock band, or take their basketball skills all the way to the NBA. A select few are realistic enough to think they may start a business and expand it enough to sell it and make a few million. My neighbor did that. Then he reinvested most of the money in another business - still don't know how well that's working out for him.

That's the trouble with gambling. It's hard to leave the table after you've won once or twice.

Originally Posted by epidecus

And what do you think are the motives for the United States' strong militaristic opposition to such governments in history? The Central Intelligence Agency has played quite a big role in changing foreign affairs. Is it so detrimental to the nation's well-being that certain nations have such political systems?

You have to look past the political/ideological bull. The main reason the USA so aggressively opposed countries switching to communism is that the new communist government always "nationalized" the businesses in which private American investors had invested millions or billions of dollars. They'd just seize the private property of all those Americans and then keep it.

Call it what you want, dress it up however you want. Theft is theft. A communist government may have the right to deprive its own citizens of property, but the moment they start doing it to foreign citizens they're effectively committing an act of war. They should expect retaliation.

Look at China. Do those workers seem really empowered to you? Did the workers in the USSR seem highly empowered to you?

Depends what you mean by empowered. China has dramatically opened up people's rights to own businesses in the past 15 years, upward mobility is MUCH greater in China than in the US right now.

Where they lack is their government doesn't seem to embrace nor have encoded human rights into their legal system.

Hi Chad, Im not saying Vote Republican, I think the interpretation is incorrect, but if anyone else concludes this, I will have to rephrase to clarify.
Left Right is a bit too simplistic imo. (The video I posted a link to did not use left and right as labels.) Saying that Obama is "left", when the US is still in Iraq, when Gitmo is still detaining prisoners, when no one's been told torture is bad let alone jailed or fined for torturing another human being, when Wall Street is still in charge of the Treasury(Fox guarding the hen house), when Patriot Act, NSA wiretap and airport gropping squads are still ongoing, when NotrhCom still considers north america like its own private battlefield playground, Is Obama questioning the 2 Party dictatorship or opening the presidential debates to 3rd party candidates? Is the US now part of Kyoto now that Obamas in office?(I wasnt told), well if that is left, then left means nothing, except to compare it with Romney. Its like saying Lava is "cold", yes it is cold, "dont you realize how hot the thermonuclear center of the Sun is", so clearly Lava is "cold", there you go, case proven. I think its a bit simplistic. But, if that is misunderstood, then I reiterate solemnly, sure the Republicans are bad, and Democrats are much less worse, I agree 100%. (I proclaim it, Let it not be said that I think that Lava is not "colder" than the center of the sun )

(Like China, ist moving to capitalism, but the Left-right dicotomy is meaningless to reference this complex reality, are they going to the right because they use to be left? Left because communism? Nonesense. its a Totalitarian regime, a complex reality cannot be resumed with a simplistic black-white label, as I pointed out Social Democracies are More democratic than most countries on earth, if the parameter puts the most democratic nations on the same side as a totalitarian regime then its not all that useful a parameter.)

(while I m here)

China has dramatically opened up people's rights to own businesses in the past 15 years, upward mobility is MUCH greater in China than in the US right now.

That is true, just like the Pinochet Dictatorship, which was beside itself with admiration of gonad electrocution, execution of political opponents and the wonderful ideology of Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys neoliberal capitalist economics.
United Fruit sponsored dictatorships are good corporate dictatorships.
(Just to put business freedoms in perspective, which is *not* saying that business freedom is bad in an of itself)

Mr. Kojax,

I think you are confusing dictator, and (non)-dictator run governments.

And there's many, many, many, many different kinds of socialism.


When Americans call themselves socialists, they are (not), wanting to be like China, nazi Germany, or the USSR.


Chad.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Hoover
"We have, in fact, a special social system of our own. We have made it ourselves from materials brought in revolt from conditions in Europe. We have lived it; we constantly improve it; we have seldom tried to define it. It abhors autocracy and does not argue with it, but fights it. It is not capitalism, or socialism, or syndicalism, not a cross breed of them. Like most Americans, I refuse to be damned by anybody's world-classification of it, such as "capitalism," "plutocracy," "proletariat" or "middle class," or any other, or to any kind of compartment that is based on the assumption of some group dominating somebody else.

The social force in which I am interested is far higher and far more precious a thing than all these. It springs from something infinitely more enduring; it springs from the one source of human progress-that each individual shall be given the chance and stimulation for development of the best with which he has been endowed in heart and mind; it is the sole source of progress; it is American individualism.

The rightfulness of our individualism can rest either on philosophic, political, economic, or spiritual grounds. It can rest on the ground of being the only safe avenue to further human progress."

To bad US republicans are trying to dismantle, all those great things America created.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

This article highlights the heath issue a bit. An international study that finds American cancer survival it the best in the world on average, but varies considerably by state and demographic. It's a similar theme of the inequality issue-- better on average but considerably income and State differences. Health care in the US isn't proactive--it's reactive. The attempts to shut down women's healthcare centers in many states are making that even more true.
Cancer Survival Rates Vary by Country

The American cancer patient cases, in the 40,000 Americans that die each year, from not having health insurance. Would not agree with your above statements. Their families would think America has horrible cancer survival rates.

Sorry for any sarcasm,
Chad.

The American cancer patient cases, in the 40,000 Americans that die each year, from not having health insurance

What? People die of cancer from all kinds of things Chad. Lack of insurance is not one of them. Now you might say some number perhaps die prematurely, but what ever that number is the overall survival rate for cancer in the US still pretty well.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

That is true, just like the Pinochet Dictatorship, which was beside itself with admiration of gonad electrocution, execution of political opponents and the wonderful ideology of Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys neoliberal capitalist economics.

Give almost any political thread enough time and it is likely that some leftist will mention Chile, Pinochet, and the Allende regime.
It is touching the faith many left-wingers have in liberal democracy when the freedom granted by that political system allows the election of a government of which they approve. Of course, when the chosen government is one they do not like then every flaw (real or imagined) of the system is listed.
Having said that, I did not approve of the actions of Pinochet and the Chilean military against the Allende government. I do not accept, however, that Allende was some kind of saintly figure with all the "correct" economic policies for the country. There were also doubts about the attitude of his government to political freedom if it had been elected for a second term.
It is not only the far right who have a history of overthrowing democratic regimes. The totalitarian left have a pretty good record here themselves!
Lastly, it is a shame your "pal" iceaura has been given the red card.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The American cancer patient cases, in the 40,000 Americans that die each year, from not having health insurance

What? People die of cancer from all kinds of things Chad. Lack of insurance is not one of them. Now you might say some number perhaps die prematurely, but what ever that number is the overall survival rate for cancer in the US still pretty well.

I have been away from the forum, and my return statements seem to have a bit of sarcasm, I guess I need to readjust, sorry.


Many Americans (die) from cancer, from not having health insurance.
Because many kinds of cancer can be pretty much cured, with medical treatment if detected early.

But it goes even further. The following Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard source shows, how US republican laws, are also causing people to (get) cancer.

My source states, "There should be scientific studies looking into why so many people are being diagnosed with cancer but it isn't happening because it would upset the economics of the large corporations that supply us with our cleaning products and food and plastic packaging."

As you may know, democrats like Michelle Obama speak a great deal of "preventative health measures." While republicans only speak of deregulation for the corporations that sell cancer causing products.


Not only do US republicans cause people to die from cancer, by not giving them health insurance.
They also cause people to (get) cancer, by not wanting preventative health measures, and giving deregulation to corporations that distribute cancer causing products, and pollution.


Anger: 45,000 Americans die every year because they lack health insurance | Cancer Survivors Network



The following source states, that the uninsured are more likely to die from cancer.

Uninsured More Likely to Die From Cancer Following Diagnosis


I also just learned that there are some groups, that seem to provide medical care, to uninsured people who get cancer. But many of these cancer victims die before they get the treatment. The facts show the uninsured are more likely to die from cancer.


Chad.

Wow, didn't expect for this to generate so much (debative) discussion. Thanks for the responses guys. I'm playing catch up with the posts here as I don't want it to seem like I simply abandoned the thread.

Originally Posted by chad

When Americans call themselves socialists, they are (not), wanting to be like China, nazi Germany, or the USSR.

Nazi Germany was socialist? It deemed a purely absolute-totalitarian government. Also, socialists were considered one of the political "undesirables", and were probably forced out in expulsion.

Give almost any political thread enough time and it is likely that some leftist will mention Chile, Pinochet, and the Allende regime.

Good point, there are so many examples of democratic governments being overthrown by CIA backed coup d'etat to put in corporatist capitalist dictator, that indeed we should mention the others more often instead of just relying on the poster boy of capitalism (Pinochet), when the inevitable equation between democracy and capitalism is erroneously made, or when puzzlement is expressed that a totalitarian regime embraces capitalism (as if its contradictory). The history of intervention goes back much further than Pinochet and the CIA, heres something Smedley Butler had to say in 1933, way before the 'School of the americas' death squads;

"I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

"I did not approve of the actions of Pinochet and the Chilean military against the Allende government."

Great, thats a positive start, every journey as its first step.

"The totalitarian left have"

This further demonstrates what I was expressing earlier, that the "left" label is inadequate and thus easily misinterpreted like most simple labels (or -isms), this is precisely why I gave the example of European Social Democracies vs North Korea, its bullcrap to amalgamate them, therefore the label is distracting/derailing thoughts from core concepts, like the ungood Orwellian newspeak that limits thought by simplifying vocabulary, few appear to realize that the left-right dichotomy is evacuating core understanding. This being said, of course, simplistically speaking, as a leftist, the left is the mantle of progress and all that is good (struggling against the evil forces of the Decepticons) so Im not saying that the left is bad, just that the label is inadequate.

Lastly, it is a shame your "pal" iceaura has been given the red card.

It sounds like an unfortunate situation, but, hum, what does that have to do with the topic? (Is that somehow related or a side note?)


(iceaura, I call unpon thee from beyond the numeric grave in a sceance, if you can contact me from beyond the void, let me know if there is a "progressive" inclined and science interested forum out there.)

>>> Attention: Halliday did not say the following! <<<

"Nazi Germany was socialist?"

>>> it is none other than "epidecus" that originally wrote this, in response to a sentence by the great "Chad" <<<

Yes Hitler sent socialists and union leaders to concentration camps before anyone else. People have trouble using labels such as "isms" because different people mean different things by it. I LMAO when people in the US were saying the giving tons of public money to private BANKERS was socialism! (you couldnt make it up). Also note that politicians have been known to lie, and if the Fascists in germany draped themselves in the socialism label, the Fascists in the US use Libertarian ideology as a facade, the ~American "Liberty" League~ was a fascist group of industrial elites that used Libertarian slogans as vectors to demolish Labor rights (5 year old kids should have the freedom to work in an unregulated chemical plant brushing Acetone containers, free market, freedom, whoo-hoo).

Originally Posted by icewendigo

This further demonstrates what I was expressing earlier, that the "left" label is inadequate and thus easily misinterpreted like most simple labels (or -isms), this is precisely why I gave the example of European Social Democracies vs North Korea, its bullcrap to amalgamate them, therefore the label is distracting/derailing thoughts from core concepts, like the ungood Orwellian newspeak that limits thought by simplifying vocabulary, few appear to realize that the left-right dichotomy is evacuating core understanding.

You congratulated me on making an important "first step" so allow me to congratulate you on the "clarity" of your prose.
You seem, however, only too willing to use these simple labels, yourself, when you mention such terms as "left-right", "capitalism", "socialism"," fascists". Also you state "the Fascists in Germany draped themselves in the socialism label". Any books, or articles, I have read on German history, between the wars, maintain that the Nazi Party had a genuine left-wing faction. Two important members of this grouping were the Strasser brothers from Bavaria.
Lastly, if you quote from more than one poster I feel you should put the name of that poster beside the quote. I had nothing to do with the quote "Nazi Germany was socialist?"

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by icewendigo

That is true, just like the Pinochet Dictatorship, which was beside itself with admiration of gonad electrocution, execution of political opponents and the wonderful ideology of Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys neoliberal capitalist economics.

Give almost any political thread enough time and it is likely that some leftist will mention Chile, Pinochet, and the Allende regime.
It is touching the faith many left-wingers have in liberal democracy when the freedom granted by that political system allows the election of a government of which they approve. Of course, when the chosen government is one they do not like then every flaw (real or imagined) of the system is listed.
Having said that, I did not approve of the actions of Pinochet and the Chilean military against the Allende government. I do not accept, however, that Allende was some kind of saintly figure with all the "correct" economic policies for the country. There were also doubts about the attitude of his government to political freedom if it had been elected for a second term.
It is not only the far right who have a history of overthrowing democratic regimes. The totalitarian left have a pretty good record here themselves!
Lastly, it is a shame your "pal" iceaura has been given the red card.

Allende didn't live long enough to see all his promises come to nothing. So people who are optimistic like to believe he would have delivered on all of them. If Obama were overthrown today, the same thing would happen. People would naively imagine to themselves that all of his new entitlement programs would have found funding somewhere or somehow.

The realism we're ignoring is the fact America wants this. Clearly it does. It voted that it wanted it.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

A crushing riposte!
I must remember never to risk debating with you again.
I will add, however, that I did agree with your comment, in a thread in the philosophy sub forum, where you stated that the vastness of space did not make the Earth, or human beings, insignificant.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by icewendigo

A crushing riposte!

Yes a very clear and factual approach of a topic that is after all not complicated and even boring.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I must remember never to risk debating with you again.

There is no risk at gaining understanding of your universe. On the contrary you are empowered in your ability to control and take decision, the thing I called liberty. Do you hate liberty and freedom of thoughts ? No you don't. So why did you wrote that phrase ? I am geniunally puzzled

Originally Posted by Boing3000

I am geniunally puzzled

I have just read your post and you aren't the only one!

"I must remember never to risk debating with you again."

Then I have failed, it was not my intent to present this as a debate, but try to share points of views (why I think X), maybe the reptilian part of my brain got the better of me. My points of view are not even mine in reality, they are just based on information other people have shared (and personal observations which I am fortunate to have made), some of which I have found to be ridiculous the first time I heard about them (ex:Resource based economy for one) because I did not have the references nor had time to process/turn around/examine the info required to digest the info or understand what the other person was trying to say(projecting what I thought they were saying based on my experiences). I have a long road to achieve an (older) Obiwan Kenobi esque serine ability to explain my point of view in a pedagogic and pleasant manner for the people I communicate with.

cheers

You do quote Smedley Butler a lot, and you need to remember he's just one guy. He saw one part of the picture, and his experiences may not have been shared by many.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"The totalitarian left have"

This further demonstrates what I was expressing earlier, that the "left" label is inadequate and thus easily misinterpreted like most simple labels (or -isms), this is precisely why I gave the example of European Social Democracies vs North Korea, its bullcrap to amalgamate them, therefore the label is distracting/derailing thoughts from core concepts, like the ungood Orwellian newspeak that limits thought by simplifying vocabulary, few appear to realize that the left-right dichotomy is evacuating core understanding. This being said, of course, simplistically speaking, as a leftist, the left is the mantle of progress and all that is good (struggling against the evil forces of the Decepticons) so Im not saying that the left is bad, just that the label is inadequate.

This is a really good point.

Each side accuses the other of being totalitarian because each side has totalitarians in its ranks. There is no "anti-totalitarian" party, because nearly everyone who goes into government wants power for themselves. Unempowering the government would defeat the whole purpose of their life's work.

Non-government, anti-political people are the ones against totalitarianism. Of course the government tries to appease them too, because it has to, but whenever a thin lie or a fib will do the trick that's what they're going to go with.

Consolidation toward an economy composed exclusively of big industries offers the potential for tremendous power concentrated in a few hands. A natural favorite for pro-totalitarians. The only good alternative to that would be Communism, since it offers the same concentration, but cuts out the middle man. A properly structured capitalist economy keeps the power too decentralized. I don't think any aspiring government leader wants that.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by icewendigo

That is true, just like the Pinochet Dictatorship, which was beside itself with admiration of gonad electrocution, execution of political opponents and the wonderful ideology of Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys neoliberal capitalist economics.

Give almost any political thread enough time and it is likely that some leftist will mention Chile, Pinochet, and the Allende regime.
It is touching the faith many left-wingers have in liberal democracy when the freedom granted by that political system allows the election of a government of which they approve. Of course, when the chosen government is one they do not like then every flaw (real or imagined) of the system is listed.
Having said that, I did not approve of the actions of Pinochet and the Chilean military against the Allende government. I do not accept, however, that Allende was some kind of saintly figure with all the "correct" economic policies for the country. There were also doubts about the attitude of his government to political freedom if it had been elected for a second term.
It is not only the far right who have a history of overthrowing democratic regimes. The totalitarian left have a pretty good record here themselves!
Lastly, it is a shame your "pal" iceaura has been given the red card.

I assumed you were an American, and I was going to reply to your post.

But then I thought you may live in South America, or near Russia.

Since I don't know whether your an American, or living near/in a dictator run country. I cant really reply to your post.

Chad.