Global Economies in trouble.

[Topaz]

Next year,100 US cities could go into bankruptcy and other countries are facing the same thing. Could the next depression be worst than the last in the 1930's? What is it going to take to get the economies back on track? I heard one advisor say the US may have to wait 5 years or longer to get its economy back on track and so were does that leave Canada and the rest of the world. Will it take a world war to get the jobs back? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/20/debt-crisis-threatens-us-cities

[dre]

Next year,100 US cities could go into bankruptcy and other countries are facing the same thing. Could the next depression be worst than the last in the 1930's? What is it going to take to get the economies back on track? I heard one advisor say the US may have to wait 5 years or longer to get its economy back on track and so were does that leave Canada and the rest of the world. Will it take a world war to get the jobs back? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/20/debt-crisis-threatens-us-cities

I think it will be more like 20 or 30 years until the economy is "back on track" the way most people would hope.

For most people "back on track" means having economies growing at a rapid rate again... theres some major structural problems that need to get solved before that can really happen. We need a less volatile energy supply, and need to stop living off the backs of our children, and driving our childrens faces into the curb by spending money they havent even made yet.

Life is just going to be diferent from now on, and boom and bust will come to mean different things. The era of prosperity we saw in North America over the last few decades is probably gone forever, and it was partly an illusion in the first place.

[eyeball]

The era of prosperity we saw in North America over the last few decades is probably gone forever, and it was partly an illusion in the first place.

Try telling that to the top 1%, it seems they're just finding their stride now.

[GostHacked]

The European Union is done in about two years.

[Michael Hardner]

There's just no comparing what we're going through now to the depressions of the past. We are living of decades and decades of productivity improvements, so that covering 'the basics' can be done with far less money.

Sales of certain video games broke records this year, which definitely didn't happen during The Great Depression !

[Pliny]

Next year,100 US cities could go into bankruptcy and other countries are facing the same thing. Could the next depression be worst than the last in the 1930's? What is it going to take to get the economies back on track? I heard one advisor say the US may have to wait 5 years or longer to get its economy back on track and so were does that leave Canada and the rest of the world. Will it take a world war to get the jobs back? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/20/debt-crisis-threatens-us-cities

I bet the problem is that the taxes are too low. :lol:

The problem is that governments are too big and costly and have given away too many entitlements that create future economic liabilities. Couple that with the fact that they have pretty much destroyed money and can only debase the currency by printing it up and spending it on whatever they deem important...like bailing out Wall St.(saving the investments of politicians, read - themselves, along the way ).

Keeping interest rates low ensures no one but the very rich can live off their savings in a secure high interest savings account. They would rather keep the interest rate low and create the money and put it where they want it to be instead of rewarding people that have savings and putting money into their hands to boost the economy. I could be entirely wrong and they could be compassionately thinking of all the people living in debt and worrying about how a high interest rate will drive people from their homes.... but I doubt it.

Really, the shaky economic environment will result in power struggles between dominant political forces. Although we are not privy to, nor intended to be informed of such struggles they will manifest themselves. Europe and North America are weak right now.

We wouldn't be in this situation had money not been destroyed and reduced to electronic entries and fiat paper currencies. If money had kept a very important property that is part of it's definition, that being that it is a store of wealth then the money people had in their accounts would be where the wealth and the power would and should be...in the hands of the people. Since our currencies have no value and money is created by the central banks we can instantly have no economic wealth and no power.

If that is not understood I understand...I don't think George Soros ever thought of it either but I bet he doesn't have all his investments in currencies. Only what he is willing to lose.

In times like this, where there is economic instability and resultant power struggles, governments tend to spend alot on the military and defense. We can expect that. They will become more dictatorial because it will be necessary for the good of all. Basically, we can expect some turmoil. I think some Americans, and people who have escaped from totalitarian regimes are the only ones that have any inkling that centralized government is the problem and we wouldn't be in any such kind of mess if people, the general masses, held some of the real wealth they should have and the resultant power that would entail.

In order to fight tyranny the people could have pooled their resources but as it is they have no resources. What they do have can be made valueless in an instant and that threat will keep the mob in line....tolerating even the most tyrannical authoritarian. Governemnts tend to like the focus to be on class warfare so they can justify to the masses the confiscation of any wealth that does remain in the hands of the private sector for the good of all. But if they do that they are basically further destroying the currency and it basically comes to be seen what it actually is...a token.

What could contribute to economic instability on such a global scale? The instability of it's currency is one thing. The reserve currency is the American dollar and it isn't looking too stable. It is threatened as the dominant currency from the middle east, China and even Europe. Obama by continuing a policy of socializing America, with no signs of restraint on spending and granting of more entitlements to "redistribute wealth" and increasing future liabilities, basically guaranteeing the growth of government and almost single-handedly but for the guiding hand of Ben Bernanke, destroying the currency. It appears to be an intentional move. They cannot be that idiotic...but then I think of Economists like Paul Krugman and think maybe it isn't intentional maybe they just have no clue.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

There's just no comparing what we're going through now to the depressions of the past. We are living of decades and decades of productivity improvements, so that covering 'the basics' can be done with far less money.

Sales of certain video games broke records this year, which definitely didn't happen during The Great Depression !

The economics of Paul Krugman shining through.

[Michael Hardner]

The economics of Paul Krugman shining through.

Are you saying that what we're going through now is comparable to the dust bowl era ?

[Pliny]

Are you saying that what we're going through now is comparable to the dust bowl era ?

Not at all. It's the roaring twenties, enjoy. It appears that you are distracted by shiny objects.

[Michael Hardner]

You are inferring that from ... ?

[dre]

I bet the problem is that the taxes are too low. :lol:

The problem is that governments are too big and costly and have given away too many entitlements that create future economic liabilities. Couple that with the fact that they have pretty much destroyed money and can only debase the currency by printing it up and spending it on whatever they deem important...like bailing out Wall St.(saving the investments of politicians, read - themselves, along the way ).

Keeping interest rates low ensures no one but the very rich can live off their savings in a secure high interest savings account. They would rather keep the interest rate low and create the money and put it where they want it to be instead of rewarding people that have savings and putting money into their hands to boost the economy. I could be entirely wrong and they could be compassionately thinking of all the people living in debt and worrying about how a high interest rate will drive people from their homes.... but I doubt it.

Really, the shaky economic environment will result in power struggles between dominant political forces. Although we are not privy to, nor intended to be informed of such struggles they will manifest themselves. Europe and North America are weak right now.

We wouldn't be in this situation had money not been destroyed and reduced to electronic entries and fiat paper currencies. If money had kept a very important property that is part of it's definition, that being that it is a store of wealth then the money people had in their accounts would be where the wealth and the power would and should be...in the hands of the people. Since our currencies have no value and money is created by the central banks we can instantly have no economic wealth and no power.

If that is not understood I understand...I don't think George Soros ever thought of it either but I bet he doesn't have all his investments in currencies. Only what he is willing to lose.

In times like this, where there is economic instability and resultant power struggles, governments tend to spend alot on the military and defense. We can expect that. They will become more dictatorial because it will be necessary for the good of all. Basically, we can expect some turmoil. I think some Americans, and people who have escaped from totalitarian regimes are the only ones that have any inkling that centralized government is the problem and we wouldn't be in any such kind of mess if people, the general masses, held some of the real wealth they should have and the resultant power that would entail.

In order to fight tyranny the people could have pooled their resources but as it is they have no resources. What they do have can be made valueless in an instant and that threat will keep the mob in line....tolerating even the most tyrannical authoritarian. Governemnts tend to like the focus to be on class warfare so they can justify to the masses the confiscation of any wealth that does remain in the hands of the private sector for the good of all. But if they do that they are basically further destroying the currency and it basically comes to be seen what it actually is...a token.

What could contribute to economic instability on such a global scale? The instability of it's currency is one thing. The reserve currency is the American dollar and it isn't looking too stable. It is threatened as the dominant currency from the middle east, China and even Europe. Obama by continuing a policy of socializing America, with no signs of restraint on spending and granting of more entitlements to "redistribute wealth" and increasing future liabilities, basically guaranteeing the growth of government and almost single-handedly but for the guiding hand of Ben Bernanke, destroying the currency. It appears to be an intentional move. They cannot be that idiotic...but then I think of Economists like Paul Krugman and think maybe it isn't intentional maybe they just have no clue.

The problem is that governments are too big and costly and have given away too many entitlements that create future economic liabilities. Couple that with the fact that they have pretty much destroyed money and can only debase the currency by printing it up and spending it on whatever they deem important...like bailing out Wall St.(saving the investments of politicians, read - themselves, along the way ).

I think the real problem is that for a sitting government in the west the entire future of the human race is 4 years. Its impossible impossible to think long term. The real problem in the west though is we are just PAST OUR PRIME. We got used to living in a world where we were the only ones with modern technology... always the innovators... always a production powerhouse. Those days are gone forever.

If that is not understood I understand...I don't think George Soros ever thought of it either but I bet he doesn't have all his investments in currencies. Only what he is willing to lose.

Nobody with a brain invests in currencies. Even if they were stable it would be a bad idea. Currency is a transactional medium, and you should only ever have enough of the stuff to execute pending transactions.

In times like this, where there is economic instability and resultant power struggles, governments tend to spend alot on the military and defense. We can expect that. They will become more dictatorial because it will be necessary for the good of all. Basically, we can expect some turmoil.

People are stupid if they allow themselves to be bilked out of their future by fear mongers. Stupid things happen to stupid people.

I think some Americans, and people who have escaped from totalitarian regimes are the only ones that have any inkling that centralized government is the problem and we wouldn't be in any such kind of mess if people, the general masses, held some of the real wealth they should have and the resultant power that would entail.

Sounds like horse shit to me. If anything Americans get this concept the LEAST.

Obama by continuing a policy of socializing America, with no signs of restraint on spending and granting of more entitlements to "redistribute wealth" and increasing future liabilities, basically guaranteeing the growth of government and almost single-handedly but for the guiding hand of Ben Bernanke, destroying the currency. It appears to be an intentional move.

Obama is not a socialist in any way. Hes a corporatist neo conservative, that helps the private sector steal from the public. A socialist would be doing the exact opposite.

And all hes doing is driving the ship on the course it was already. The decision to finance debt with inflation was made in the early seventies, and every single administration since then has carried the torch. The US was already bankrupt before this scheme was put in place... in fact thats WHY the scheme was put in place. Before you can judge this "scheme" you have to look at it in the context of what it replaced, and why it came to be. There was on a RUN on US gold reserves and they had printed way more money than they had gold to back. So they declared bankrupcty and reset the system to deplete the value of the dollar slowly over time instead of it crashing to near zero value in the 70's like it would have otherwise.

Edited December 24, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

I think the real problem is that for a sitting government in the west the entire future of the human race is 4 years. Its impossible impossible to think long term. The real problem in the west though is we are just PAST OUR PRIME. We got used to living in a world where we were the only ones with modern technology... always the innovators... always a production powerhouse. Those days are gone forever.

Right, so now the whole world is beginning to embrace and copy Western innovation and to participate in it themselves. Meanwhile, most of the greatest advancement and newest innovations continue to come from the West, as they have for the past several centuries. The West no longer overshadows the rest of the world as it once did, but it is not past its prime, rather, we are bringing other nations and peoples into the fold, to eventual mutual benefit, even if there is some economic instability generated in the process.

It's funny how every time there is a little blip in the economic trend of continuous exponential growth, all kinds of people creep out of the woodwork to predict doom and gloom. And then a few years later everything is back on track, as always. Even after the great depression, North American economies quickly bounced back to where they would have been had nothing happened, and the other recessions hardly register at all.

http://www.econ.umn.edu/~tkehoe/U.S.GDP.gif

[dre]

Right, so now the whole world is beginning to embrace and copy Western innovation and to participate in it themselves. Meanwhile, most of the greatest advancement and newest innovations continue to come from the West, as they have for the past several centuries. The West no longer overshadows the rest of the world as it once did, but it is not past its prime, rather, we are bringing other nations and peoples into the fold, to eventual mutual benefit, even if there is some economic instability generated in the process.

It's funny how every time there is a little blip in the economic trend of continuous exponential growth, all kinds of people creep out of the woodwork to predict doom and gloom. And then a few years later everything is back on track, as always. Even after the great depression, North American economies quickly bounced back to where they would have been had nothing happened, and the other recessions hardly register at all.

http://www.econ.umn.edu/~tkehoe/U.S.GDP.gif

Back on track is relative term. Weve been on the wrong side of the economic equation since the 70's, with the exception of the tech boom in the 90's, and our standard of life has been supplemented with borrowed money.

When you look at how our kids do in things like mathematics compared to rapidly developing countries you can get an idea whos gonna be doing well in 20 - 30 years. The US is worse of, because Canada can keep living off its resources for some time to come, but the structural problems we have are basically similar.

Im 38 years old now, and I imagine Ill move somewhere else by the time I retire. For now though

[Pliny]

I think the real problem is that for a sitting government in the west the entire future of the human race is 4 years. Its impossible impossible to think long term. The real problem in the west though is we are just PAST OUR PRIME. We got used to living in a world where we were the only ones with modern technology... always the innovators... always a production powerhouse. Those days are gone forever.

Right...4 years to see if another 4 years can be had.

Nobody with a brain invests in currencies. Even if they were stable it would be a bad idea. Currency is a transactional medium, and you should only ever have enough of the stuff to execute pending transactions.

Tell it to George Soros...it seems you don't have enough to risk and can't break any economies.

Obama is not a socialist in any way. Hes a corporatist neo conservative, that helps the private sector steal from the public. A socialist would be doing the exact opposite.

I berlieve I did say that you would think things were actually going fascist instead of socialist.

And all hes doing is driving the ship on the course it was already.

Agreed. The progressive socialist course.

The decision to finance debt with inflation was made in the early seventies, and every single administration since then has carried the torch. The US was already bankrupt before this scheme was put in place... in fact thats WHY the scheme was put in place. Before you can judge this "scheme" you have to look at it in the context of what it replaced, and why it came to be. There was on a RUN on US gold reserves and they had printed way more money than they had gold to back. So they declared bankrupcty and reset the system to deplete the value of the dollar slowly over time instead of it crashing to near zero value in the 70's like it would have otherwise.

Ooooh...interesting...tell me more.

[Bonam]

Back on track is relative term. Weve been on the wrong side of the economic equation since the 70's, with the exception of the tech boom in the 90's, and our standard of life has been supplemented with borrowed money.

We're STILL in the "tech boom", just people aren't noticing it anymore since not being in a tech boom is no longer imaginable. Anyway, the "wrong side" of the economic equation is only because labour in other countries is so much cheaper. That won't remain the case as those countries rapidly industrialize and catch up with Western living standards.

When you look at how our kids do in things like mathematics compared to rapidly developing countries you can get an idea whos gonna be doing well in 20 - 30 years. The US is worse of, because Canada can keep living off its resources for some time to come, but the structural problems we have are basically similar.

For all the doom and gloom people forecast for the US, it is still by far the world's preeminent seat of innovation, new technology, and post-secondary education and research. As for resources, the US actually has a ton of resources left unexploited too, mostly left so for environmental reasons. If the US ever really does get into dire economic circumstances, it could forsake caring about the environment and become a resource powerhouse in the same way as Russia has. Anyway, the West only really needs to keep its lead for another 30-40 years, til we hit the technological singularity, then it won't matter much anymore.

Im 38 years old now, and I imagine Ill move somewhere else by the time I retire. For now though

Me too. I'll probably retire on Mars.

[dre]

Right...4 years to see if another 4 years can be had.

Tell it to George Soros...it seems you don't have enough to risk and can't break any economies.

I berlieve I did say that you would think things were actually going fascist instead of socialist.

Agreed. The progressive socialist course.

Ooooh...interesting...tell me more.

I berlieve I did say that you would think things were actually going fascist instead of socialist.

Not fascist. Corporatist.

How much of Obamas orgy of spending ended up in the pockets of the commoner? Very very little. It went to wealthy corporations. And remember all the talk of public healthcare? There IS no public healthcare... healthcare was a massive corporate welfare scam, and so is the mandate. Same goes for the GWOT.

All these policies were designed to rob regular people of their wealth, and all that wealth ended up in the pockets of government lobbying corporations and wealthy Americans.

This just ISNT socialism no matter how many times you try to claim it is. Kleptocracy would be a better word for it. Not only are you off on your definition of socialism youre 180 degrees off. Exactly backwards.

Edited December 25, 2010 by dre

[dre]

We're STILL in the "tech boom", just people aren't noticing it anymore since not being in a tech boom is no longer imaginable. Anyway, the "wrong side" of the economic equation is only because labour in other countries is so much cheaper. That won't remain the case as those countries rapidly industrialize and catch up with Western living standards.

For all the doom and gloom people forecast for the US, it is still by far the world's preeminent seat of innovation, new technology, and post-secondary education and research. As for resources, the US actually has a ton of resources left unexploited too, mostly left so for environmental reasons. If the US ever really does get into dire economic circumstances, it could forsake caring about the environment and become a resource powerhouse in the same way as Russia has. Anyway, the West only really needs to keep its lead for another 30-40 years, til we hit the technological singularity, then it won't matter much anymore.

Me too. I'll probably retire on Mars.

We're STILL in the "tech boom", just people aren't noticing it anymore since not being in a tech boom is no longer imaginable.

Me thinks you need to look up the word "boom".

Anyway, the "wrong side" of the economic equation is only because labour in other countries is so much cheaper. That won't remain the case as those countries rapidly industrialize and catch up with Western living standards.

Theres over a hundred countries left to exploit still, and we are decades away from reaching anything resembling wage parity. Theres enough cheap labor to last a century.

Anyway, the West only really needs to keep its lead for another 30-40 years, til we hit the technological singularity, then it won't matter much anymore.

The thing is who is going to create this technological singularity, and own the results of it? Canadian and American students are falling behind. Theyre skills are declining, and theres little appetite in the west to improve how we educate our kids because its very expensive to fix. We just dont have the money anymore.

Trust me I hope youre right but if things continue on their current path you wont be.

[Bonam]

Me thinks you need to look up the word "boom".

I'm aware of its definition, and in my observation the tech boom is still going strong. Other aspects of the economy are rising and bubbling and popping, but underlying it all the exponential growth of the tech economy has continued.

Theres over a hundred countries left to exploit still, and we are decades away from reaching anything resembling wage parity. Theres enough cheap labor to last a century.

Countries, maybe. But population wise? With China, India, and the West brought into the fold (not to mention Japan and South Korea), that is ~1/2 the world's population. Add in the nations of South East Asia which are rapidly developing and its well over half. Pretty soon it will just be Africa where there will remain lots of cheap labor, and jobs will be offshored to there not only from the West but also from China and India and everywhere else, so prices will be driven up much faster.

The thing is who is going to create this technological singularity

I, for one

and own the results of it?

The shareholders of the corporations involved?

Canadian and American students are falling behind.

In school yeah, but what about university? Where are the world's top grads in fields of advanced technology coming from? American universities almost universally dominate these fields.

Theyre skills are declining, and theres little appetite in the west to improve how we educate our kids because its very expensive to fix. We just dont have the money anymore.

I think you may well be right that the average in public elementary and high schools may be declining, but I think the variance of education on the high end is biggest in the West as well. People can still get amazing educations at some schools, special programs, private schools, etc. I for example was lucky enough to have an awesome high school experience.

Trust me I hope youre right but if things continue on their current path you wont be.

Guess we'll see.

[dre]

I'm aware of its definition, and in my observation the tech boom is still going strong. Other aspects of the economy are rising and bubbling and popping, but underlying it all the exponential growth of the tech economy has continued.

Countries, maybe. But population wise? With China, India, and the West brought into the fold (not to mention Japan and South Korea), that is ~1/2 the world's population. Add in the nations of South East Asia which are rapidly developing and its well over half. Pretty soon it will just be Africa where there will remain lots of cheap labor, and jobs will be offshored to there not only from the West but also from China and India and everywhere else, so prices will be driven up much faster.

I, for one

The shareholders of the corporations involved?

In school yeah, but what about university? Where are the world's top grads in fields of advanced technology coming from? American universities almost universally dominate these fields.

I think you may well be right that the average in public elementary and high schools may be declining, but I think the variance of education on the high end is biggest in the West as well. People can still get amazing educations at some schools, special programs, private schools, etc. I for example was lucky enough to have an awesome high school experience.

Guess we'll see.

I'm aware of its definition, and in my observation the tech boom is still going strong. Other aspects of the economy are rising and bubbling and popping, but underlying it all the exponential growth of the tech economy has continued.

I think we just define the word differently. From the information I can find and my feeling as a worker in that industry the tech sector is basically just following the same trend lines as the rest of the private sector, and with the exception of healthcare and social assistance growth is pretty much stagnant. In a technology boom I would expect the tech sector to outpace growth in most other sectors like it did in the 1990'2.

In school yeah, but what about university? Where are the world's top grads in fields of advanced technology coming from? American universities almost universally dominate these fields.

You cant separate universal primary and secondary educations from post secondary because they provide the basic building blocks universities have to live with. But before we could argue that point we would have to define some parameters. But increasingly the US is lagging behind the top countries in almost every technology related sector.

Theres a good article on this at digital trends.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/why-america-lags-behind-the-worlds-top-technology-leaders/2/

A lot of North Americans havent even heard of the newest technologies out there and we're the last to get them. One example is the recent introduction of barcode readers on mobile phones... people in Japan have been able to walk down the aisles in a grocery store, and get the prices for items simply by swiping their phone across a barcode. We are also way behind in robotics and increasingly innovation in this field comes from Asia, which is home to a large share of todays biggest and most innovative high tech companies. Increasingly foreign nations produce not only more competent technologists than the US, but also better ones. North America also sports some of the slowest networks in the modern world, and also a lot of the most low-tech infrastructure, transportation technology etc. Neither the US or Canada have done much to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack in new fields like stemcell research, nanotechnology, or bioinformatics. One thing the US clearly still DOES have is a healthy position on aerospace and weapons technology, but thats only because of the US government dumping borrowed money into the DOD at unsustainable rates.

Clearly youre right that it isnt all DOOM AND GLOOM. But we've stopped doing the things that got us to the top, and we have a pretty narrow window to correct that before we get left behind.

Edited December 26, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

One thing the US clearly still DOES have is a healthy position on aerospace and weapons technology, but thats only because of the US government dumping borrowed money into the DOD as unsustainable rates.

Perhaps my view is more optimistic since that happens to be my field and the research I do and see being done is certainly ahead of anything I hear being done in other countries.

Anyway, I agree that in the fields of robotics and information technology, nations like South Korea and Japan have taken a solid lead. But, there is nothing wrong with that. Those nations are our allies no less than Europe is, perhaps more, and they share many of the same philosophies and cultural features as are prevalent in the West. That's kind of the point, by the time a nation reaches the level of advancement where it really competes with the West on the whole (and not just in tiny elite portions like China does so far), it will likely be culturally compatible with us, and we don't have to worry about competing with it, but rather can benefit from mutual trade and exchange of information. Nations that compete with and even overtake the US in some areas aren't beating us; they are joining us.

[bush_cheney2004]

... people in Japan have been able to walk down the aisles in a grocery store, and get the prices for items simply by swiping their phone across a barcode...

Well isn't that special...the US has developed RFID and nano tags that would make barcodes obsolete.

PS: The Americans invented barcodes too...natch!

Edited December 27, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[maple_leafs182]

America is printing money in order to pay for their deficit which acts as stimulus to their economy. If America does not do this, America would slip back into a recession. America can continue to print money to pay for their debt and prop up their economy only until inflation gets out of hand. People are less likely to invest in a dollar that dollar is constantly losing value. As less people buy American Government Bonds the Federal Reserve will be forced to buy an increasing amount of Bonds which will lead to more and more inflation. Inflation can spiral out of control quickly this way. This will inevitably lead to a collapse of the dollar and a global depression.

People always ask whether this this is a V or a W shaped recovery, I would say it is shaped more shaped like an M. The economy started to get artificially propped up with the housing bubble, it then collapsed, now it is again being artificially up until it will collapses again.

[Pliny]

Not fascist. Corporatist.

How much of Obamas orgy of spending ended up in the pockets of the commoner? Very very little. It went to wealthy corporations. And remember all the talk of public healthcare? There IS no public healthcare... healthcare was a massive corporate welfare scam, and so is the mandate. Same goes for the GWOT.

All these policies were designed to rob regular people of their wealth, and all that wealth ended up in the pockets of government lobbying corporations and wealthy Americans.

This just ISNT socialism no matter how many times you try to claim it is. Kleptocracy would be a better word for it. Not only are you off on your definition of socialism youre 180 degrees off. Exactly backwards.

I laughed when you made the distinction between fascism and corporatism. Many people consider fascism to be mainly a form of corporatism.

Are you of the opinion that socialism exists only in it's ideal end and calling Canada socialistic would not be correct?

If you don't like to confuse fascism with socialism then let's just call it Statism. Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism are all Statist ideologies.

Of course I have it backwards. I only make distinctions between the size of government and the State's intervention and nullification of the individual in favour of the aggrandizement of the State. I have no interest in maintaining the current popular confusion regarding an understanding of the State. What it is, where it is going, and why it attempts to keep people in a state of confusion regarding itself, as in a universal social democracy, or control as in a dictatorship or totalitarian socialist state.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Pliny

[maple_leafs182]

If you don't like to confuse fascism with socialism then let's just call it Statism. Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism are all Statist ideologies.

Socialism came in response to capitalism. Many socialist saw that capitalism exploited nature and the working class, they also don't approve of the competitive nature of capitalism which they believe goes against the co-operative nature of humanity.

Socialists believe that inequality occurs due to the relationship between power and the economy rather then simply the capabilities of the individual. They believe that a more equal society in terms of distribution of wealth and power would lead to a greater sense of community and solidarity which would facilitate cooperation instead of competition.

There are many ideas as to what an ideal socialist society would look like and yes some advocate for a larger more intrusive government but not all socialist agree with this approach. I'm sure you have heard of Noam Chomsky who is a self proclaimed Libertarian Socialist, he would prefer a smaller almost non existent government. One thing socialist do agree on is they believe in some form of public ownership rather then private ownership of the means of major production so that decisions that affect the community are no longer made by the businessmen.

[ZenOps]

Things could be worse than the depression of the 30's.

You would figure with all the technological advances up until the 1930's (electricity, mass production, fertilizers, etc...) since say 0AD, that people would not be starving.

But they did. Economies of scale fail on equally large scale. Bad chicken eggs? Throw a billion of them away.

From a starvation standpoint however - North America could be spared at least one more year. California had a massive deluge of rain, meaning that surface water levels will finally be replenished after decades of drought. And since they shot down Proposition 19 - they will probably go back to growing apples.

A 25cent per pound apple would be nice for a change.