Attention Forum Socialists

[Pliny]

I never said that. Some people are on welfare and that is a temporary dependency. However, to make it sound like doctors are loafers who depend on a handout to survive is ludicrous.

They never have to face a patient who can't pay. Nice benefit.

[Pliny]

Yes, except that that wasn't enough. The leaders of Sumeria reorganized their society, added overhead and created an economy. The commodities didn't increase, just the organization. And the taxes.

And people were wealthier for it.

You mean they had good government?

Obviously, organization takes planning.

To make the people more wealthy organization and planning had to have made it easier to produce. What obstacles to production could have been removed or what creations could have been invented for ease of production.

A valid thing that could have been done was to hold back the hordes of people that may have been a threat to Sumerian wealth - and indeed Sumer and Akkad, the two Sumerian city states produced the most sophisticated armies of the Bronze age.

Sumerian Enemies.

This however, as is any government service, is a cost to society, not a creation of wealth.

That's more a function of specialization. Yes, we rely on government but also agribusiness, petro business, and Mary's Fashion Nails in the strip mall.

With one difference. WE freely support or not agribusiness, petro business, and Mary's Fashion nails. WE use our own faculites to determine how we support these things or not, and make decisions.

Most of us don't check out our teachers backgrounds or our schools, we trust our doctors to be the best, but really we have no way to gauge these things or any avenue to query them. Most teachers or doctors would be indignant or offended if you questioned them on anything regarding their credentials. Just as Nicky is offended by my lack of acceptance of a "degree" as proof of character and/or ability or "expertness". A "degree", is indeed a factor but it shouldn't be the determining and conclusive factor in determining ability or character. Most of us just assume that if a doctor or teacher presents themselves as such we believe them - someone else in the government should have checked it out already - we don't have to, thus we become unobservant and dependent upon government.

You know what, Michael, we can't just consider everyone equal and place the same amount of trust in everyone that it seems is expected of us. We teach our children not to trust strangers but then they are asked to treat everyone equally and be caring and sharing - not in either of these statements is our ability to make our own judgments based upon our own observations ever invited to be used.

[Michael Hardner]

You mean they had good government?

Obviously, organization takes planning.

To make the people more wealthy organization and planning had to have made it easier to produce. What obstacles to production could have been removed or what creations could have been invented for ease of production.

A valid thing that could have been done was to hold back the hordes of people that may have been a threat to Sumerian wealth - and indeed Sumer and Akkad, the two Sumerian city states produced the most sophisticated armies of the Bronze age.

Sumerian Enemies.

This however, as is any government service, is a cost to society, not a creation of wealth.

While this is a good discussion, we both have to be careful because we're talking about government in an era where there were no laws, private property wasn't protected... etc. etc. so I really should point out that it's not entirely analogous to today.

BUT.

The government - or more accurately, organizing body - of the day didn't provide a way to increase wealth, nor removed barriers. They simply organized trade, so that it could happen efficiently and thereby reduced waste.

The organization of common elements society is a very useful role of government, that can't happen with a multitude of independent operators working in their own interest.

Having said that, I now forget why we were on this example. Oh yes, a quote from you "Sorry if the wealth isn't there to build the cities they don't materialize.". The wealth was there the whole time, but it wasn't being used efficiently. A common approach was needed.

I'm just trying to point out another example where government did some good.

With one difference. WE freely support or not agribusiness, petro business, and Mary's Fashion nails. WE use our own faculites to determine how we support these things or not, and make decisions....

I disagree that we use different criteria to figure out whether we trust business, government or what have you. Kind of an esoteric topic (which means I'm interested of course) but I would think that such things are more decided by personal factors - how much we know the representatives of these entities, how much experience we've had, and what the prevailing wisdom is.

When I buy food from Loblaws I tend to trust it, but buying food from a dollar store makes me more dubious. When I deal with the civil service, I am usually quite dubious, but certain offices usually surprise me with their efficiency and speed - such as passport and driver's license offices, which necessarily have to process things quickly.

But... I agree that we become 'dependent' on services when there is a lack of options, and in this way we are dependent on government far far too much. This is why, if you haven't noticed, I have called on people to pay more attention to healthcare statistics, and the lack thereof.

The topic of performance stats for government services is dull, except to process nerds like me, and as such there's no interest in it even on these boards. If/when any politician starts to implement those, though, they will see great rewards and garner more faith than politicians have recently.

Furthermore, I think that good performance stats may challenge some of the very foundations of market vs. publicly supported services and (eventually) usher us into a new era of all private, or even all public services... who knows.

[Pliny]

New deal politics and economics didn't end until Reagan, so no, sorry, the war didn't end with caution about big government intervention.

From what you are saying there was no such thing as McCarthyism and no Fascist, big government backlash. Certainly, I will agree there were factions that promoted internationalism and still supported socialist tnedenciescreated the UN out of the defunct League of Nations but democracy and government of and for the people with limited bureaucracy; not communist or socialist democracy, but a true sense of democracy prevailed.

We can't forget though that socialist forces didn't die. Communism had to morph over the next several decades into something other than the achievement of totalitarian socialism through international revolution with the Viet nam war being the last fundamental communist revolution. Socialism is, of course, prevalent in international bodies both governmental and non-governmental and are gradually eroding the concept of nationalism or even national sovereignty and creating the "global" community.

At least you recognize Reagan tried to downsize government or at least cut it's growth. Probably the First president to do so since With a democratic congress he was able to cut taxes but not cut government spending, probably the first president to do so since Coolidge.

After the war ended, GIs came home with lots of money that they didn't have to send home because wives, mothers, sisters, daughters worked in factories. THey used the money, and other government programmes such as the GI bill to go back to school, create new business which brought the economy back to life. No matter how you look at it, it was done with government dollars.

The majority of our disagreements will arise out if the fundamental subject of economics. You are of the idea that "government dollars" exist, and essentially they don't. Government has no money. It gets money from taxation of the economy or it borrows it from the central bank which is supposed to be paid back out of future taxes taken out of the economy, or it inflates the money supply which is basically a form of hidden taxation.

Now I haven't read the whole history of the world from the perspective of "economics" but I have read enough to know that governments must extract it's entire spending out of the economy. It cannot and does not create prosperity, it can only facilitate or impede the creation of such. Nothing was ever done with "government dollars" since they originate in the economy.

That current buzzword "Sustainability" doesn't figure in at all?

The factories worked, it was the way that the economy was planned that was unsustainable.

So the five year plans were nonsense? A communist or totalitarian socialist government will always be unsustainable. Economies, contrary to Keynes thesis, cannot be macro-engineered by a single central authority over a sustained period with any success.

Of course I thought about it, but then again, that's the political reality of the situation. Only you could take that reality and then turn it about yourself being in the majority. That view makes the assumption that people don't vote because they're disillusioned with the same special interest you claim to fight. That's not the case at all. Generally, people don't vote because the situation doesn't really require them to vote.

Not until you get a Bob Rae or a Glen Clark in office. But you are right they don't vote as long as government doesn't do too much. They are the silent majority and the Tea Party movement in the US is mostly comprised of those people.

Countries with really big problems tend to have a much higher proportion of people who vote because their intervention in the political system is deemed necessary. The fact that Canada is generally devoid of major problems and combined with a lack of decent education regarding the political situation speaks far more to why people don't vote here than special interests. Really, you're in the extreme minority.

Special interests are a very vocal minority the silent majority may be swayed to vote with them or not. mostly they are left-wing interests that wish a place at the political trough.

I would say you are just being contrary on this particular point and it is more of a personal and emotional position as opposed to a reasoned one. You can't turn it around.

Given the state of the Canadian political landscape you simply cannot be in the centre.

Is it the state of the Canadian political landscape that determines the centre? You are not wrong of course but then if this is true we need a different political spectrum for every nation as well as one for the world and we can put them all at the centre and move the centre around wherever the current political landscape should take us.

Confusions are entered in because the political spectrum is not standard. Where is limited and small government? It certainly cannot exist anywhere outside the centre. Left wing politics once again enters in and changes socialism from being left wing to being in the centre. I am right wing simply because I do not support left wing policies. I also don't support right wing policies of social intervention but apparently I am a right wing nut job. Opposition to left-wing politics makes it so.

t is increasingly unusual to get a second opinion in Canada. Mainly because the resources and the time is not there to do so. If you want to wait another six months to see a different specialist you can. Most people won't bother or if they can afford it will see a doctor privately in the States. Another option.

Stats?

I am not going to be presenting stats, I don't usually and especially on this point won't. There are too many variables in quoting statistics I will only do so if the statistics are simply a matter of quantity. On the point I am making, general news information such as concern over length of lineups or growing waiting periods will have to suffice. Even then, these news stories may originate out of a demand for resources and may not be entirely true. But anecdotal experiences seem to back the growing short supply of services. Take your pick of what you wish to believe.

Because as we're seeing with pollution right now, businesses can't be depended on to regulate themselves. If you let private companies hand out certificates, they'll need to do it for money. Which means that the process will be far more easily corrupted. Meaning it's a lot more likely that a person could become a doctor with no training at all.

There are a ton of regulations right now. More regulations aren't going to help. A simplification of regulations is more in order than more regulations.

There needs to be risk in stock markets. However, the financial instruments these people were selling and others were buying weren't backed by anything tangible. It was a casino and it shouldn't work that way. No sane person would argue otherwise.

They were backed by the people who took out the mortgages of which those financial instruments were comprised. Thet were heavily bet against because of the nature of the policies that generated them. Those policies being activism to make ninja loans so all could relaize the American dream without putting any effort into it.

Furthermore, good to know that you view child labour as children contributing to society.

That sounds really incriminating. I know you will haunt me with that forever. You have to define child labour. Is having a paper route child labour? Is running a lemonade stand child labour? I don't believe in the exploitation of children but I do think they can contribute to society and families. You are being an absolute ass by making the implication you are in the above statement.

Again, your view of capitalism doesn't exist in reality.

Thank you! I have said that for a long time but for some reason capitalism is still being blamed for all of societies ills.

Ok, so 12 hour work days are really ok, as well as the elimination of minimum wage so you can create more jobs. However, if you're working 12 hour days at a dollar an hour, sure you could employ more people, but is it advantageous/fair to the worker? Would that be a living wage? There's a big difference between the amount of jobs you can create as opposed to those jobs value to society. An underemployed person is just as bad as an unemployed person. Their options are either to take governmental supplements to bring him to the poverty line or let him live under the poverty line. Then there's the other side of the issue which is crime. People at or under the poverty line are, for reasons plainly obvious, far more likely to be involved in crime. The cost to society both in dollar terms and in other non-measurable forms could be far greater than the costs associated with a minimum wage.

We live in the times we live in. I don't think that everyone should have been earning $30,000 per annum in 1900. It is a nice thought - but not possible and would only mean that $30,000 was the equivalent of the average at the time, without checking the Stats, I would guess would be around $2-4000/annum. Money is only representative of value it isn't the actual value itself although some economist will say it is.

I get that there are factions vying for power. I get that the situation is unstable. However, the lack of a central governing authority makes it anarchy. The fighting is merely a result of that anarchy. Like you said, there is a power vacuum and differen't people try to fill it. The hustled and often disorganized route to that outcome is why anarchy has become a commonplace term to define things that are out of control within our own society.

Well, I am not advocating anarchy.

It(government) exists in it's laws.

Which don't exist.

You mean there is no laws - anarchy????

The use of the term crown is merely symbolic, a relic of our traditions and history. There really isn't any conspiracy going on there. Furthermore, we do have property rights. It's implicit in the charter of rights and freedoms. We're protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Without the basis of property rights, that clause wouldn't need to exist. As for the US and property rights, the US government has made seizures along the same lines as any other democratic nation, so looking up to them just for the fact that in court cases they use "the people vs." might be a tad short sighted.

Of course, it is merely symbolic...although a symbolic legal corporate entity. Ownership of land is the question to hand not the right to privacy or unreasonable search and seizure.

Sorry, you are little short sighted on the law. You should round out your education a little more.

There are a litany of examples and you chose the income tax? Yikes. Even the founding fathers of the US admitted that taxes were necessary, they were upset about the lack of representation to debate those taxes. Canada, the US and other countries with income taxes had ample opportunity to raise parties, have them elected and repeal those taxes.

Income tax is the most obvious. We can afford them for awhile, they are n't that much and that's the insidious nature of them.

A far more authoritarian gesture would've been the internment of the Japanese and Germans during WWII.

Yes. Proving the point even further that our government can be and is authoritarian.

Government's are held in check by an indepedent judiciary which can strike down laws if they're deemed undemocratic, the guidelines for which are laid down in our common law and charter of rights and freedoms. Why? Because they can exceed the rule of law. In democracies, there tends to be a cycle, generally between the need for security and the preservation of rights. 9/11 and the patriot act in the US and the anti-terrorism laws here are a good example. The need for security was seen as lower, therefore, the electorate allowed for a brief downtown in civil liberites. The tide has turned and the electorate are now demanding more accountability in terms of basic civil liberties and human rights, to which now we're seeing the process of the shutting down of guantanamo bay. The ultimate decider is deciding to kick whoever out of office. Despite what any leader has done, they've always ceded control of their office when they've lost an election. So to comment that we're no longer a democracy when there is that basic fact is laughable.

WE are approaching the point where power is centralized enough to invite the would be dictators, such as Turdeau, to attempt to eliminate the inefficiency of something as annoying as democracy.

What's you take on Chavez? Just a real cool guy, right?

Edited June 4, 2010 by Pliny

[nicky10013]

From what you are saying there was no such thing as McCarthyism and no Fascist, big government backlash. Certainly, I will agree there were factions that promoted internationalism and still supported socialist tnedenciescreated the UN out of the defunct League of Nations but democracy and government of and for the people with limited bureaucracy; not communist or socialist democracy, but a true sense of democracy prevailed.

We can't forget though that socialist forces didn't die. Communism had to morph over the next several decades into something other than the achievement of totalitarian socialism through international revolution with the Viet nam war being the last fundamental communist revolution. Socialism is, of course, prevalent in international bodies both governmental and non-governmental and are gradually eroding the concept of nationalism or even national sovereignty and creating the "global" community.

At least you recognize Reagan tried to downsize government or at least cut it's growth. Probably the First president to do so since With a democratic congress he was able to cut taxes but not cut government spending, probably the first president to do so since Coolidge.

You're getting back into the cycle of using terms of which you don't know the definition.

Also, Reagan talked about downsizing government, but it got bigger. Just like with every other small government conservative.

The majority of our disagreements will arise out if the fundamental subject of economics. You are of the idea that "government dollars" exist, and essentially they don't. Government has no money. It gets money from taxation of the economy or it borrows it from the central bank which is supposed to be paid back out of future taxes taken out of the economy, or it inflates the money supply which is basically a form of hidden taxation.

Now I haven't read the whole history of the world from the perspective of "economics" but I have read enough to know that governments must extract it's entire spending out of the economy. It cannot and does not create prosperity, it can only facilitate or impede the creation of such. Nothing was ever done with "government dollars" since they originate in the economy.

No, the public sector of the economy is still the economy. The things our taxes go to are services that still would have to be provided. Roads, sewers etc. etc. are all things that we'd have to pay money to use. Often times, it's far more efficient to have the government implement the service. Healthcare for example. You can cite me every ideological cliche ever written by right wing nut jobs, but we pay far less than the Americans on health care. In that case, the money we don't spend on co-pays and deductibles that we would have in the states is money that CAN be put back into the economy.

Sorry, something as massive and complex as the economy (like the government; this is becoming a trend) can't be boiled down to one catch all just because you can't understand the rest.

So the five year plans were nonsense? A communist or totalitarian socialist government will always be unsustainable. Economies, contrary to Keynes thesis, cannot be macro-engineered by a single central authority over a sustained period with any success.

Not until you get a Bob Rae or a Glen Clark in office. But you are right they don't vote as long as government doesn't do too much. They are the silent majority and the Tea Party movement in the US is mostly comprised of those people.

No they aren't, they're the same loud mouthed libertarian christian evangelists they always were.

Special interests are a very vocal minority the silent majority may be swayed to vote with them or not. mostly they are left-wing interests that wish a place at the political trough.

I would say you are just being contrary on this particular point and it is more of a personal and emotional position as opposed to a reasoned one. You can't turn it around.

By far the biggest lobby in the US is the defence lobby. Yeah, because that's one lefty loving hippy lobby. The second is IPAC, the Israeli lobby. Here it's fairly similar. Look today, Canada signed a no-bid fighter contract for 65 F-35s for 9 billion dollars. That surely is a left wing lobby.

They were backed by the people who took out the mortgages of which those financial instruments were comprised. Thet were heavily bet against because of the nature of the policies that generated them. Those policies being activism to make ninja loans so all could relaize the American dream without putting any effort into it.

Yeah, the "activism" policy you're referring to is what the rest of the world calls deregulation.

That sounds really incriminating. I know you will haunt me with that forever. You have to define child labour. Is having a paper route child labour? Is running a lemonade stand child labour? I don't believe in the exploitation of children but I do think they can contribute to society and families. You are being an absolute ass by making the implication you are in the above statement.

You should've clarified your statement earlier then. You're the one saying regulations=bad. I said fine, how about kids working in factories like in Victorian England to which you've been dancing around lest you admit that some form of regulation on companies exist.

Thank you! I have said that for a long time but for some reason capitalism is still being blamed for all of societies ills.

You shouldn't be thanking me or anyone. I mean it in the sense that your version of capitalism CAN'T exist because it's not possible. Just like Marx's version of communism can't exist. What you think should be here can only exist in some naive fairy tale world.

We live in the times we live in. I don't think that everyone should have been earning $30,000 per annum in 1900. It is a nice thought - but not possible and would only mean that $30,000 was the equivalent of the average at the time, without checking the Stats, I would guess would be around $2-4000/annum. Money is only representative of value it isn't the actual value itself although some economist will say it is.

I agree. However, if you deregulate minimum wage, what do you think will happen? Of course wages will drop, but do you HONESTLY believe that prices will drop along with that? Low/no minimum wages empirically leads to greater increases in the disparity between rich and poor, often without any reason like hard work and stick-tuitivness. Those lack of pesky regulations often leads to massive corruption.

Well, I am not advocating anarchy.

Well, considering how confused you are re: socialism, communims, totalitarianism, fascisms, democracy. It's about the only thing left you could be advocating for.

You mean there is no laws - anarchy????

In Somalia.

Of course, it is merely symbolic...although a symbolic legal corporate entity. Ownership of land is the question to hand not the right to privacy or unreasonable search and seizure.

Sorry, you are little short sighted on the law. You should round out your education a little more.

OK...let me get this straight. It's symbolic but you can't trust our property laws here because it isn't specifically guaranteed, though even in the US where it happens anyway, the system can be trusted because there is a guarantee? If it's protection from the government you're looking for, then ownership really doesn't matter, it's the constitutional rights that matter. Correct? Ownership doesn't imply protection, legal rights do.

As for the last part, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Income tax is the most obvious. We can afford them for awhile, they are n't that much and that's the insidious nature of them.

You're a lunatic.

Yes. Proving the point even further that our government can be and is authoritarian.

WE are approaching the point where power is centralized enough to invite the would be dictators, such as Turdeau, to attempt to eliminate the inefficiency of something as annoying as democracy.

What's you take on Chavez? Just a real cool guy, right?

You're a fucking idiot. I'm done with this. Read a book.

[bush_cheney2004]

....By far the biggest lobby in the US is the defence lobby. Yeah, because that's one lefty loving hippy lobby. The second is IPAC, the Israeli lobby....

Patently false....why do you make this stuff up when it is easy to demonstrate your fallacy. The biggest lobby group in the United States is the American Association of Retired Persons (35,000,000 strong) and also the most influential.

[nicky10013]

Patently false....why do you make this stuff up when it is easy to demonstrate your fallacy. The biggest lobby group in the United States is the American Association of Retired Persons (35,000,000 strong) and also the most influential.

It's not called the military-industrial complex for a reason. The AARP may be the largest in terms of people who belong, but the defence lobby has the mosst power considering the budget for the US military is easily twice the size of any other state. People rotate into and out of contractors, congress and think tanks and the military. Not surprisingly, they all say: we need to spend more! It's good for the companies, the think tanks who make money off the government and good for the politicians who get defence jobs in their district.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not called the military-industrial complex for a reason. The AARP may be the largest in terms of people who belong, but the defence lobby has the mosst power considering the budget for the US military is easily twice the size of any other state.

Wrong again....the US defense budget is smaller than that for social programs, which also have several more powerful lobbies.

People rotate into and out of contractors, congress and think tanks and the military. Not surprisingly, they all say: we need to spend more! It's good for the companies, the think tanks who make money off the government and good for the politicians who get defence jobs in their district.

More money is made on Medicare, Medicaid, Education, Health and Human Services, etc. You don't like defense spending and that's fine, but you are dead wrong on the facts.

[nicky10013]

Wrong again....the US defense budget is smaller than that for social programs, which also have several more powerful lobbies.

More money is made on Medicare, Medicaid, Education, Health and Human Services, etc. You don't like defense spending and that's fine, but you are dead wrong on the facts.

Yes, but what I'm saying is there is a far larger avenue for corruption and influence peddling in terms of defence contracts rather than on set benefits. What is AARP going to lobby for that equals defence procurement? How many multi-billion dollar development projects have been approved in terms of providing social services?

Edited June 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but what I'm saying is there is a far larger avenue for corruption and influence peddling in terms of defence contracts rather than on set benefits. What is AARP going to lobby for that equals defence procurement? How many multi-billion dollar development projects have been approved in terms of providing social services?

You are still plenty wrong....billions are spent and wasted on social programs just like defense contracts. Medicare is going to bankrupt the USA long before any defense budget, because defense budgets are discretionary spending.

You got nuthin!

[nicky10013]

You are still plenty wrong....billions are spent and wasted on social programs just like defense contracts. Medicare is going to bankrupt the USA long before any defense budget, because defense budgets are discretionary spending.

You got nuthin!

What? Answer my question. Just because you think the money is wasted doesn't mean the process is open in terms of social security and medicare like defence is. Those are set programmes that are by default pretty difficult to change. There are new defence expenditures all the time.

[bush_cheney2004]

What? Answer my question. Just because you think the money is wasted doesn't mean the process is open in terms of social security and medicare like defence is. Those are set programmes that are by default pretty difficult to change. There are new defence expenditures all the time.

This is the old guns vs. butter debate, and by law, the US government must spend more on butter, every year at a growing rate. The defense budget is less than 5% of GDP. Health care alone is about 17%.

You got nuthin' !

[Oleg Bach]

This is the old guns vs. butter debate, and by law, the US government must spend more on butter, every year at a growing rate. The defense budget is less than 5% of GDP. Health care alone is about 17%.

You got nuthin' !

Correction - you do not have a defense budget..it is more like an offense budget..and because it is profit motivated there is always reward at the end of the adventure..God bless America - you are going to need it.

[Pliny]

You're getting back into the cycle of using terms of which you don't know the definition.

You are basically saying my social studies teacher was wrong. Well,

if I want to understand something and I have conflicting information. I take the information that most aligns with other information and reject information that adds confusion and complexity and does not contribute to a greater understanding of the subject.

Where is anarchy on the current political spectrum? I guess you could argue it is an absence of government so it is not on the political spectrum. Ok, where is government with a limited mandate? You know, one that isn't engineering society and is just protecting the sanctity of person and property - Not granting entitlements to the poor or corporations. You haven't said where this is on the spectrum and, I believe, you place yourself in the centre. So where is small government?

Also, Reagan talked about downsizing government, but it got bigger. Just like with every other small government conservative.

He wanted to downsize government. He wanted to get rid of the Jimmy Carter created Department of Education. He never did. He never cut spending. You of course are implying that the President of The US is the sole political influence in the nation. Although Reagan was a Republican, Congress and the Senate, the other two political branches of government, were controlled by Democrats.

It is questionable though that even with a Republican majority in the two houses that government spending cuts would have amounted to much anyway. It is harder to cut government budgets and entitlements than taxes. People will still vote for you if you cut taxes but not if if you cut their entitlements. You can bet the people employed at the Department of Education didn't vote Republican.

No, the public sector of the economy is still the economy.

The public sector does not produce it's own capital. It takes it out of the economy and spends it as it decides. It may be on roads, healthcare, education, war or welfare but it spends only. The things it spends on may facilitate economic growth but government only spends.

The things our taxes go to are services that still would have to be provided. Roads, sewers etc. etc. are all things that we'd have to pay money to use.

Who should have roads? Who should have sewers? What level of government makes these decisions? Should an agency as far removed as the Federal government decide? Does everyone get their turn equally?

Often times, it's far more efficient to have the government implement the service.

That's arguable.

Healthcare for example. You can cite me every ideological cliche ever written by right wing nut jobs, but we pay far less than the Americans on health care. In that case, the money we don't spend on co-pays and deductibles that we would have in the states is money that CAN be put back into the economy.

WE pay far less and we have a mediocre service if we can get it.

Remember also that a significant proportion of their healthcare services are, being private enterprise, by choice.

Sorry, something as massive and complex as the economy (like the government; this is becoming a trend) can't be boiled down to one catch all just because you can't understand the rest.

It can be understood once information is properly aligned.

Keeping a subject esoteric is one of the things people like to do.

Knowledge is power.

No they aren't, they're the same loud mouthed libertarian christian evangelists they always were.

Most Libertarians haven't had a vote and don't bother.

The silent majority has finally had it with lib-left BS and government growth. If you think they are the same old voters that turn out to vote for their party promises every election you have another think coming.

By far the biggest lobby in the US is the defence lobby. Yeah, because that's one lefty loving hippy lobby. The second is IPAC, the Israeli lobby. Here it's fairly similar. Look today, Canada signed a no-bid fighter contract for 65 F-35s for 9 billion dollars. That surely is a left wing lobby.

It's a big government lobby. The left really doesn't understand that their demands for welfare and entitlements also creates right wing demands for their entitlements. Government caters to both in it's own interests.

Yeah, the "activism" policy you're referring to is what the rest of the world calls deregulation.

Blame unfettered and unregulated capitalism. Yep. It's all been deregulated.

You should've clarified your statement earlier then. You're the one saying regulations=bad. I said fine, how about kids working in factories like in Victorian England to which you've been dancing around lest you admit that some form of regulation on companies exist.

What regulation should exist? Children should not work? I consider that to be child abuse. Injustices are the charge of government. If children are being exploited that is unjust and justice needs to prevail. Children working should not be a crime and that is what government regulation currently amounts to.

You shouldn't be thanking me or anyone. I mean it in the sense that your version of capitalism CAN'T exist because it's not possible. Just like Marx's version of communism can't exist. What you think should be here can only exist in some naive fairy tale world.

My version of capitalism doesn't exist because as we can afford it we keep buying more and more government.

I agree. However, if you deregulate minimum wage, what do you think will happen? Of course wages will drop, but do you HONESTLY believe that prices will drop along with that?

They will be determined by the market. Up, down. Supply and demand determines that. If more people are employed and more work is being done that means more is being produced. I would say then that prices would go down for those products.

Low/no minimum wages empirically leads to greater increases in the disparity between rich and poor, often without any reason like hard work and stick-tuitivness.

The opposite is true. It means more people will not work but prefer the social safety net instead. The cost to society is more unemployed who don't develop any job skills that make them more employable.

What "empirical" evidence is there that absence of minimum wages leads to greater disparity between rich and poor? We have minimum wage laws but arguments are still that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Arguing minimum wages aren't adequate isn't really a good argument. Adding even a few dollars to the minimum wage only means that more will be unemployed - the poor get poorer.

Those lack of pesky regulations often leads to massive corruption.

If government is maintaining justice it shouldn't be so.

Well, considering how confused you are re: socialism, communims, totalitarianism, fascisms, democracy. It's about the only thing left you could be advocating for.

Apparently, you believe a democracy is naturally devoid of socialist or fascist policies.

In Somalia. [there is no government]

There is a societal structure. There is an organization of powers.

There is no central government. Somalia is an example of forces wishing to centralize power. Soon they will have a central government and a central bank. It isn't all bad having a national government. Justice is important.

OK...let me get this straight. It's symbolic but you can't trust our property laws here because it isn't specifically guaranteed, though even in the US where it happens anyway, the system can be trusted because there is a guarantee? If it's protection from the government you're looking for, then ownership really doesn't matter, it's the constitutional rights that matter. Correct? Ownership doesn't imply protection, legal rights do.

Ownership is the right. Protection of that right is the job of government.

You're a lunatic.

You're a fucking idiot. I'm done with this. Read a book.

Well...thanks again.

Good bye.

[bush_cheney2004]

Correction - you do not have a defense budget..it is more like an offense budget..and because it is profit motivated there is always reward at the end of the adventure..God bless America - you are going to need it.

Frankly, I wish it returned to the original name..."War Department". No sense in bullshitting around, eh?

[bjre]

Spain downgraded as Europe debt crisis widens

Who has the right to downgrade this and downgrade that, I guess those are all controlled by the wall street.

I guess they are the ones who take money from all the world and now trying to destroy the euro.

They don't care economy of any country, they just take money, take any wealth all other people created.

[Pliny]

Who has the right to downgrade this and downgrade that, I guess those are all controlled by the wall street.

I guess they are the ones who take money from all the world and now trying to destroy the euro.

They don't care economy of any country, they just take money, take any wealth all other people created.

You aren't very good at guessing.

[Oleg Bach]

Frankly, I wish it returned to the original name..."War Department". No sense in bullshitting around, eh?

yah - and I wish our investment bankers would get honest and stop calling "war supplies" foreign aid.

[Oleg Bach]

You are still plenty wrong....billions are spent and wasted on social programs just like defense contracts. Medicare is going to bankrupt the USA long before any defense budget, because defense budgets are discretionary spending.

You got nuthin!

Oh no - I have the sniffles....and a rash..off to the emerg I go....120 bucks for the doctor to tell me I have a cold - and a perscription for some cream to get rid of the rash - that only controls it - but is not designed to cure it..and I have to go back to the doc at least thirty times to get the script filled...which adds up to about 5000 in profit for the doc and pharma..

[Pliny]

Once again - thanks to Nicky. I feel like a Bill O'Reilly or a Glen Beck or even a Rush Limbaugh. A "Lunatic and fucking idiot". What higher status lib-left description could I dream of?

[Moonlight Graham]

We are now dependent upon government for many things and many people owe their livelihood to government, either through employment or contract. I would include the medical and teaching professions as well as public service employees in that count.

The government of Canada is the country's largest employer. How...interesting.

[Pliny]

The government of Canada is the country's largest employer. How...interesting.

Yeah..,.Harper and his ilk are going to have a tough time of it.

[Yesterday]

Fascism is not really socialism...It is true that the Italian Fascists under Mussolini originally adopted what seemed to be socialistlike policies.When one scratches the surface of this,however,one can see that it really was a ruse to get power and give power to the state and quasi state run corporations.

If the arguement is that both the extreme left and right are top down,totalitarian,authoriatrian ideologies there is no arguement becuase they are.As I said in a thread a month ago,I think the confusion comes from a misreading of the poltical spectrum by alot of people and buying into semantics.Most people read the political spectrum as a straight line,and from the middle out.This would obviously lead one to think that the two extremes on the ends were diametrically opposed.While they are opposed to each other,they are almost identical,with at least 3 very big philosophical differences.I was always taught to read it like a horseshoe,or an incompleted circle.I like the horseshoe better because it shows that the extremes are much closer than they are apart.But there should be no confusion that the extreme right and left have a few very extreme differences that keep them like anti-matter.I outlined 3 of them earlier.

Actually,it's even more different than that...European Fascism came in at least 4 different versions.At it's worst was NAZI Germany.Mussolini was a Fascist that Hitler originally modeled his ideology on,but Fascist Italy was never as violent as NAZI Germany.Franco's Spain,in my opinion,would be the next severe version.Franco himself tried to distance himself from the Falangists after they had outlived their usefulness to him.Franco described himself as a Conservative Monarchist...Frankly,it's a fine lne between that and Fascism.Oliviera Salazar in Portugal would be the 4th version of Fascism.Strongly authoritarian,but still almost colonial...

There are the same different variations on the extreme left.Lenninist/Stalinist Russia was far different than Maoist China,although both were disastrous.Of the two,I find Mao's version the most frightening because of his almost svengali-like appeal and effect on the Chinese masses.As the Sino-Soviet relationship soured,maoist regimes started to teke hold in Southeast Asia.Ho Chi Minh in Viet Nam and Pol Pot with the Khmer Rouge uprising in Cambodia are examples of this.

Almost all of the supression in leftist regimes come from a forced agrarian policy.In Fascist states,the problem arise from agression towards surrounding states,or those who stand up to the corportist nature of Fascist states.

Hi Jack, I'm jumping in a little late but sometimes as I read through the old posts to learn...

The first situation that comes to mind when reading this last part is Poland. I went onto Polish forum boards with the translater function to see what the people where saying about the reason for the plane crash. The most common attributes were 1. Not wanting further involvement with the IMF or the EU 2. For some reason the Flu shot...?

They were gearing up to stand off against the corporatist state. I am horrified at the result.