We are All Socialist at Heart…it’s easier

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

According to the Wall Street Journal (May 4, 2009) a recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows only 53% of Americans prefer capitalism to socialism; 27% were unsure and 20% preferred socialism. That may explain the results of the last election.

Assuming, of course, Americans ever felt differently, what happended?

Socialism is easier, it’s that simple. Look at it this way, once you get used to paying more than half of your income in taxes to the government, your worries are over. You don’t know or care that the money is spent inefficiently or that you have turned over control of a large part of your life to the state, all you know is that you don’t have to worry any more about health care, retirement income, education, child care, disability or unemployment. It’s all quite appealing is it not?

Nobody has to be an ant, we can all be grasshoppers. Why work hard, just work hard enough to pay your taxes and save a little energy to march from time to time in a protest to preserve your benefits at all cost.

Your 401(k) plan is in the tank, who cares, you have a good government pension. Your employer is screwing you and taking away your health care that you thought would be part of your future retirement, so what? You bust your butt to work hard and save more, no need, half of what you make is gone before you have it so why bother? There is always someone else to worry about where the money is coming from and of course, that 50% tax rate can always go up.

There are added benefits too, we are all equal. The mediocre among us no longer stand out, the slackers are no longer at risk and the real achievers; well they may get to pay 70% of their income in taxes.

Socialism is so easy I think more and more Americans will conclude, hey why not? There is one big test coming up and that is health care. Keep your ears open and listen to how many people you hear say they want “free” health care from the government.

Socialism is not only easy, it can also be free. :rolleyes:

[Rapunzel]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1183287 wrote: Keep your ears open and listen to how many people you hear say they want “free” health care from the government.

Socialism is not only easy, it can also be free. :rolleyes:


I know you're only quoting an article Quinn, but there is nothing wrong with wanting "free" healthcare IMO. I know its not 'free'. I know many people pay for it in taxes and don't get their monies worth - yet. But as people get older they WILL need additional healthcare and, being sick, they won't be able to afford that healthcare longterm.

There are many films and stories that come from the US which tell us how mad your healthcare system is. Look at the film by Denzil Washington where his son needs a heart transplant - only they never told DW because his healthcare plan didn't cover it! So DW holds the doctors hostage and forces them to take his own heart to give to his son. I think it's called John Q. There is another film with Will Smith called The Persuit of Happyness about a man forced to live on the streets with his young son and yet another with Mare Winningham living on the streets with her young daughter. I also recall the story of a Medical Company who wouldn't give a man $500,000 he needed for treatment to save his life yet at the same time they spent $500,000 on a statue for the foyer of their new medical building. The stories come thick and fast to show how tough things are without a "free" healthcare system.

Yes, our system is abused, but at least we can all receive the treatment we need under the NHS (National Health Service). People who need brainsurgery or transplants or homes to live in will go on waiting lists but they will get them in the end. And they will get temporary accomodation until then. My friends daughter needed emergency surgery in LA and her healthcare system refused to cover her again afterwards. So my friend brought her home to the UK (after splitting with her hubby). Once home, her daughter unexpectedly needed the same treatment again and received it...for "free".

I pay over £100 per month in Council Tax. It seems a waste and yes all councils waste money, but if I didn't pay it I wouldn't be able to call the Police or Fire Department or Ambulance when I was in need. There wouldn't be tarmaced roads for them to drive on to reach me. And I wouldn't have my rubbish and recycling collected each week.

But out of everything we have, I think our "free" healthcare system is the best. Without them my baby son wouldn't have had 2 years of "free" kidney scans or a "free" life-saving operation when he was born and my baby daughter wouldn't have been put on a "free" life-support machine or given "free" medicine that cost the doctors about £100 per week for about 10 years and I wouldn't be given "free" medication because I'm diabetic, which means my medication will be "free" for the rest of my life.

Without our healthcare system, my babies would all be dead and probably so would I. We owe them our lives and I'm very glad my taxes help keep them free.

My heart cries in pain when I see how badly so many US citizens are treated because they cannot get the treatment they want or need because their healthcare systems won't allow it. In a civilised world it is so unfair. Or to see people so ill they have to sell their houses to pay for their treatment and then they have nowhere to rest or recover because their home is gone.

It's all very well to knock people for being sheep, but what is wrong with having healthcare when you're sick? what is wrong with having an education for your children? what is wrong with having a retirement income when you're too old to work and what is wrong with having unemployment benefits when you're unexpectedly out of work and don't want to be living rough on the streets with your family?

Socialism isn't easy and life isn't free. Life is about choices. And most people choose to protect their families and keep out of jail simply by paying their taxes. It's not a great system, no system is, but it's better than having nothing. At least we have help when we're in need.

Sorry to jump down your throat over this.

[Snowfire]

It seems to me that our health care system here in the UK has been the envy of the world since its inception, yet Americans seem to be terrified of its introduction, feeling that it would be the first step to socialism.

We are by no means the only country in the world to have a social health system, it at least provides those who can least afford it, a decent level of health care without resorting to giving your hard earned to some thieving insurance company - cos that is in effect what they are when they find any excuse they can for not weighing out.

Doesnt Canada have such a health system ? They havent done so bad as a country. I dont see them slipping into some crypto communist/marxist/socialist/call-it-what-you-like quagmire that some would have us believe.

As Rap points out, its hardly free. It just takes the decisions about your health away from a huge faceless medical insurance company, who's first priority is profit, first and foremost and gives the individual the piece of mind. Its not a criticism of America's health system but of the way it leaves behind the vulnerable who can least afford it

[gmc]

The debates' kind of moved on. Capitalism and socialism are no longer seen as mutually exclusive-most european countries have mixed economies with-for instance-things like healthcare run on a socialised basis funded by those employed in a capitalist economy. It's only the extreme left that hang on to the notion everything should be state owned-that has been shown not to really work, and it's only the extreme right that want to privatise everything.

Even the progenitor of capitalism puts a case that some things were too important to be left to private enterprise. Education he thought was a matter for the state as it led to the betterment of society as a whole and also a more stable one as educated people re less inclined to follow demagogues blindly.

That you choose a system where people are left to die because they are too poor to pay for medical care or people put off going to the doctor or dentist for fear of the cost is bizarre. But it's your choice.

posted by quinns commentary

There is one big test coming up and that is health care. Keep your ears open and listen to how many people you hear say they want “free” health care from the government.


Do you not underestimate your fellow americans I'm sure most of then don't think they will get it for nothing. besides if they do decide they want it it's the price you pay for living in a democracy-sometimes you don't get your own way. After all they've had to put up with not having universal healthcare.

From what i can gather I think americans pay about the same in taxes as we do-but then on top of that they have t pay for medical care. I've paid for the NHS all my working life and only used it on a couple of times-but it's there if I need it and the only issue will be what treatment I need-to me that is priceless. Right now I am paying for someone else's hospital treatment if you want to look at it that way.

[Accountable]

Rapunzel;1183298 wrote: There are many films and stories that come from the US which tell us how mad your healthcare system is. Look at the film by Denzil Washington where his son needs a heart transplant - only they never told DW because his healthcare plan didn't cover it! So DW holds the doctors hostage and forces them to take his own heart to give to his son. I think it's called John Q. There is another film with Will Smith called The Persuit of Happyness about a man forced to live on the streets with his young son and yet another with Mare Winningham living on the streets with her young daughter. I also recall the story of a Medical Company who wouldn't give a man $500,000 he needed for treatment to save his life yet at the same time they spent $500,000 on a statue for the foyer of their new medical building. The stories come thick and fast to show how tough things are without a "free" healthcare system.John Q is pure fiction. I'm not familiar with the Winningham story or the medical company. Most fiction exaggerates the truth and ignores or changes facts when they aren't convenient. They also use rare or unique instances; common occurrences just aren't interesting.



The Persuit of Happyness is a true story of a man who took foolish chances with his life and the life of his son, but was able to triumph and make millions - giving his son a far better life than the mediocre one you seem to recommend. We celebrate such spirit here in the US. It is American, and many of us don't want to lose it. Such a spirit - and the ingenuity that goes with it - would be killed if a child were raised to depend on the government rather than himself.



Rapunzel wrote: Socialism isn't easy and life isn't free. Life is about choices. And most people choose to protect their families and keep out of jail simply by paying their taxes. It's not a great system, no system is, but it's better than having nothing. At least we have help when we're in need.
What you describe in this paragraph is living in fear, and that's no way to live. Exist, yes, but not live.

[spot]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1183287 wrote: Socialism is so easy I think more and more Americans will conclude, hey why not? There is one big test coming up and that is health care. Keep your ears open and listen to how many people you hear say they want “free” health care from the government.I do hope so. You might be right.

I'lll give you a working definition of Socialism to contrast with the excessive wealth of the minority which the US currently practices: socialism is the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number, with the restriction that it guarantees fairness to all. Fairness certainly doesn't include the option to grow grotesquely rich just because you're good at it.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY wrote: The mediocre among us no longer stand out, the slackers are no longer at risk and the real achievers; well they may get to pay 70% of their income in taxes.Would you like to tell me a country which has a top income tax band of 70% or higher? I don't know of one off-hand. The UK has practiced socialist governance continuously for the last sixty years and our top income tax bracket increases to 50% next year.

A couple of years ago on FG we worked out estimates for the amount of gross personal income paid as taxation in all forms, income and sales and housing, local and national, for low, middle and high earners in both the UK and US, all the answers drifted down from 50% to 40% as people earned more. The main conclusion was that low earners had very little choice-disposable income after bare living costs were taken from the remainder.

[Snowfire]

Accountable;1183815 wrote:



It is American, and many of us don't want to lose it. Such a spirit - and the ingenuity that goes with it - would be killed if a child were raised to depend on the government rather than himself.




Do you really see social health as depending on the goverment ? I see it as taking the health care decisions away from Health insurance companies and their "profit first" attitude and back into the hospital. I dont see that as breaking the American spirit at all. Just socially reponsible

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

I don't know how this got on health care in America that was not the original point.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about health care in America. I have worked with health plans and written about the subject and administered corporate plans for over 45 years so I could go on forever and at some point I will as the current administration is again headed in the wrong direction, but that's another debate.

[Snowfire]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1183842 wrote: I don't know how this got on health care in America that was not the original point.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about health care in America. I have worked with health plans and written about the subject and administered corporate plans for over 45 years so I could go on forever and at some point I will as the current administration is again headed in the wrong direction, but that's another debate.


I think your last paragraph was important enough to comment on. Since you used it as an example as the creeping in of socialism. What I am saying is, is that social health care, isnt the big bad boogie man that I think your infering and its not free

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1183287 wrote:

Socialism is so easy I think more and more Americans will conclude, hey why not? There is one big test coming up and that is health care. Keep your ears open and listen to how many people you hear say they want “free” health care from the government.

Socialism is not only easy, it can also be free. :rolleyes:

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

I'lll give you a working definition of Socialism to contrast with the excessive wealth of the minority which the US currently practices: socialism is the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number, with the restriction that it guarantees fairness to all. Fairness certainly doesn't include the option to grow grotesquely rich just because you're good at it.


I find that defining "fairness" as meaning that those who can achieve above the norm are prevented from doing so rather disturbing. So what we are saying is that each person should strive to achieve only up to the norm for the majority? So, despite the fact he created tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs world-wide, Bill Gates who I assume qualifies as grotesquely rich should not have that option, not to mention that he is now using that wealth to help humanity in a much more efficient manner than any government. Sorry, I just don't get it.

Would you like to tell me a country which has a top income tax band of 70% or higher? I don't know of one off-hand. The UK has practiced socialist governance continuously for the last sixty years and our top income tax bracket increases to 50% next year.


Okay, that was an illustration; at the moment the highest I found was 60% but if you add the VAT in many cases you hit the 70% in a few countries and if you broaden the definition of income tax in, say France you have no trouble hitting it. No matter what you call it, it's a tax and lowers ones net income.

[gmc]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1183842 wrote: I don't know how this got on health care in America that was not the original point.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about health care in America. I have worked with health plans and written about the subject and administered corporate plans for over 45 years so I could go on forever and at some point I will as the current administration is again headed in the wrong direction, but that's another debate.


You're the one that mooted it as an upcoming big test.

Socialism is so easy I think more and more Americans will conclude, hey why not? There is one big test coming up and that is health care. Keep your ears open and listen to how many people you hear say they want “free” health care from the government.




How about are there some things that are to important to be left to the private sector and for the good of society as a whole must be provided and paid for by the state. Politics is, in part, the ongoing argument about what those things are and how best to provide them.

For instance no one would argue surely that private individuals or companies should have control of the armed forces or be allowed to have armed forces powerful enough to be a threat. Nor should there be private police forces. The authority of the police is given to them by a willing populace (will most of them) to impose the rule of law. I can't see anyone agreeing to allow private police answerable only to a company.

Education is another. Access to education as a basic right of all-doesn't stop you going to a pruivate school if you want but all should have the right to a good education regardles of ability of the parents to pay. Societies that do well and have succeeded have been those where that principle had been accepted.

Infrastructure-roads etc should be provided for the good of the economy as a whole and not run for private profit alone-otherwise an awful lot of roads would never get built.

As it happens we think healthcare is also something where private profit is best kept out of the equation and the only question is what treatment is possible not whether it is fiscally prudent for the bottom line.

At heart there are many things that we probably all agree should not be left to the marketplace. You're probably a closet socialist except you don't realise you're in the closet:sneaky:

posted by quinns commentary

There is a lot of misunderstanding about health care in America.


There may well be but it is a constant theme in all of the american dramas we see on our TV-someone or other can't afford treatment or the HMO won't pay and people die or go to extremes to get money to pay for healthcare. I read somewhere that medical bills are one of the most common reason people go bankrupt in the US. Being seriously ill can lose you your house here as well-if you can't pay the mortgage as a consequence of not being able to work-but even the destitute don't have to worry about the cost of medical care or that they might be refused treatment.

posted by spot

I'lll give you a working definition of Socialism to contrast with the excessive wealth of the minority which the US currently practices: socialism is the pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number, with the restriction that it guarantees fairness to all. Fairness certainly doesn't include the option to grow grotesquely rich just because you're good at it.


Actually that's utilitarianism and while undoubtedly influenced socialist thought it is by no means the only such ism to have done so. It also is used to justify dictatorship and the rule of a few for the greater good. As a working definition it leaves much to be desired as it is the one that leads on to the worst excesses all in the name of the greater good.

[spot]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1184016 wrote: Okay, that was an illustration; at the moment the highest I found was 60% but if you add the VAT in many cases you hit the 70% in a few countries and if you broaden the definition of income tax in, say France you have no trouble hitting it. No matter what you call it, it's a tax and lowers ones net income.


Come on, do some work instead of waving flannel at the subject. VAT applies to a diminishingly small fraction of gross personal income, you know perfectly well that you can't just add the two rates to get a composite. I've told you we did the sums for the UK and US and found diminishing taxation as income rose, starting around 50% and dropping, above $1m/year, to around 40% in both countries. I'll ask again - which country can you claim a 70%+ figure for? Name the country and I'll try to do the same calculation for it, time-consuming though it is. Your claim that it will soon be applicable to the rich in the US is risible.

[spot]

gmc;1184033 wrote: Actually that's utilitarianism and while undoubtedly influenced socialist thought it is by no means the only such ism to have done so. It also is used to justify dictatorship and the rule of a few for the greater good. As a working definition it leaves much to be desired as it is the one that leads on to the worst excesses all in the name of the greater good.


If you'd be so good as to put back my qualifier, "with the restriction that it guarantees fairness to all", you'll find I thereby excluded utilitaranism and anything else to do with the greater good at the expense of the few. Adding that qualifier is the standard Rawlsian adjustment. One needs, of course, to work out what's unfair given the ranges of society around the world. In general I'd put it as being so less endowed than the average as to be evidently poor in contrast. In the UK it would include healthcare, schooling, housing, subsistence and at least a bare real disposability to some remaining turnover however humble. Membership of the National Trust for oneself and any children, for example, is £62 a year, I wouldn't count that an unreasonable necessity.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

gmc;1184033 wrote: You're the one that mooted it as an upcoming big test.



How about are there some things that are to important to be left to the private sector and for the good of society as a whole must be provided and paid for by the state. Politics is, in part, the ongoing argument about what those things are and how best to provide them.

For instance no one would argue surely that private individuals or companies should have control of the armed forces or be allowed to have armed forces powerful enough to be a threat. Nor should there be private police forces. The authority of the police is given to them by a willing populace (will most of them) to impose the rule of law. I can't see anyone agreeing to allow private police answerable only to a company.

Education is another. Access to education as a basic right of all-doesn't stop you going to a private school if you want but all should have the right to a good education regardless of ability of the parents to pay. Societies that do well and have succeeded have been those where that principle had been accepted.

Infrastructure-roads etc should be provided for the good of the economy as a whole and not run for private profit alone-otherwise an awful lot of roads would never get built.

As it happens we think healthcare is also something where private profit is best kept out of the equation and the only question is what treatment is possible not whether it is fiscally prudent for the bottom line.

At heart there are many things that we probably all agree should not be left to the marketplace. You're probably a closet socialist except you don't realise you're in the closet:sneaky:

posted by quinns commentary



There may well be but it is a constant theme in all of the american dramas we see on our TV-someone or other can't afford treatment or the HMO won't pay and people die or go to extremes to get money to pay for healthcare. I read somewhere that medical bills are one of the most common reason people go bankrupt in the US. Being seriously ill can lose you your house here as well-if you can't pay the mortgage as a consequence of not being able to work-but even the destitute don't have to worry about the cost of medical care or that they might be refused treatment.

posted by spot



Actually that's utilitarianism and while undoubtedly influenced socialist thought it is by no means the only such ism to have done so. It also is used to justify dictatorship and the rule of a few for the greater good. As a working definition it leaves much to be desired as it is the one that leads on to the worst excesses all in the name of the greater good.


In the near future I will start a thread on healthcare. there are many problems to be sure just as there are in all systems and clearly our uninsured is a problem, but not the type of problem one would be lead to believe. But that private profit issue use raise is interesting in that there is always private profit is there not, don't drug makers, physicians, equipment manufacturers make a profit in any system? Our problem is that we have the profit motive skewed in the wrong direction.

I assume you are referencing insurance companies, but in America over 70 million people are covered by large employer self funded plans where there is no insurance company or profit motive and another 40 million or so are covered by Medicare for the 65 and older where there is no profit motive and still the problem of rising costs exits. the myth that insurance companies are causing a major portion of the problem is just that, a myth.

[Snowfire]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1184052 wrote: In the near future I will start a thread on healthcare. there are many problems to be sure just as there are in all systems and clearly our uninsured is a problem, but not the type of problem one would be lead to believe. But that private profit issue use raise is interesting in that there is always private profit is there not, don't drug makers, physicians, equipment manufacturers make a profit in any system? Our problem is that we have the profit motive skewed in the wrong direction.

I assume you are referencing insurance companies, but in America over 70 million people are covered by large employer self funded plans where there is no insurance company or profit motive and another 40 million or so are covered by Medicare for the 65 and older where there is no profit motive and still the problem of rising costs exits. the myth that insurance companies are causing a major portion of the problem is just that, a myth.


I dont read any post saying profit was wrong. Profit is essential otherwise a business ceases to exist. I think the arguement was against profiteering and excesive greed. Wouldn't you classify Bill Gates as grotesquely rich ? By any standard he is. You cannot defend such excessive wealth using the justification of philanthropy, however transparant the donations might be. Surely it qualifies as obscene when his personal wealth is beyond that of a small 3rd world country. Seems to me that some of that money hasnt been used to its best potential, to say the least.

[Accountable]

Snowfire;1183821 wrote: Do you really see social health as depending on the goverment ? I see it as taking the health care decisions away from Health insurance companies and their "profit first" attitude and back into the hospital. I dont see that as breaking the American spirit at all. Just socially reponsible
(Not having read any posts after this one)

I see depending on the government as depending on the government. I would take the health care decisions away from both insurers and hospitals, both controlled by the bottom line, and give it back to the individual -- the individual who has (typically) currently lost the skills required to be independent, self-reliant, and self-disciplined -- rather than giving these responsibilities to politicians and bureaucrats, whose values and interests are as random as the clerk who picks up the file.

[gmc]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1184052 wrote: In the near future I will start a thread on healthcare. there are many problems to be sure just as there are in all systems and clearly our uninsured is a problem, but not the type of problem one would be lead to believe. But that private profit issue use raise is interesting in that there is always private profit is there not, don't drug makers, physicians, equipment manufacturers make a profit in any system? Our problem is that we have the profit motive skewed in the wrong direction.

I assume you are referencing insurance companies, but in America over 70 million people are covered by large employer self funded plans where there is no insurance company or profit motive and another 40 million or so are covered by Medicare for the 65 and older where there is no profit motive and still the problem of rising costs exits. the myth that insurance companies are causing a major portion of the problem is just that, a myth.


I don't know enough about the way the american system works to comment really. I have an impression garnered from watching american drama. If you watch ours-especially the medical ones- you will seldom see someone getting shot and sometimes there isn't a bed available but no one features who can't afford the treatment.

One advantage of a universal scheme is the sheer buying power it would have to force down the cost of drugs and other stuff.

We have a major problem here with people who have gone privately things like cosmetic surgery and it goes badly wrong and then the NHS has to sort it out for them. personally if they've gone privately and it's gone wrong they should sue the clinic and doctors responsible-don't see why the rest of us should be expected to pick up the tab. You can get private medical insurance here but you only get cover for acute conditions-any chronic and therefore really expensive treatments they won't cover you for and the good old NHS has to pick up the tab.

personally I have no problem with private insurance but if it was done on the basis that electing to pay for private cover meant you opted out of the NHS (except maybe in an emergency situation but then you had to repay the cost) altogether with no right to use it ever again the private medical insurance industry would cease immediately in the UK. When it really comes right down to it for all people complain about it they wouldn't be without it. The majority are inclined to think it obscene that someone with enough money should be able to jump the queue rather than have people taken on a basis of need. My father in law had a heart by-pass operation-it was postponed twice due to an emergency taking precedence. He could have gone privately but did not do so because to him it was a matter of principle-but he's old enough to remember what it was like before we had the NHS. You find a lot of our OAP's feel very strongly about it it was one of the changes that people fought for in this country, it's a matter of principle held dear by many.

I just find it incomprehensible that anyone would tolerate a healthcare system where inability to pay meant you couldn't get treatment. In this country it was a conscious decision that medical care should be freely available to all at the point of need (and it's not actually free we pay for it just not on your sickbed) and voted for it overwhelmingly.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Snowfire;1184101 wrote: I dont read any post saying profit was wrong. Profit is essential otherwise a business ceases to exist. I think the arguement was against profiteering and excesive greed. Wouldn't you classify Bill Gates as grotesquely rich ? By any standard he is. You cannot defend such excessive wealth using the justification of philanthropy, however transparant the donations might be. Surely it qualifies as obscene when his personal wealth is beyond that of a small 3rd world country. Seems to me that some of that money hasnt been used to its best potential, to say the least.


Here is what I was referring to from gmc: "As it happens we think healthcare is also something where private profit is best kept out of the equation and the only question is what treatment is possible not whether it is fiscally prudent for the bottom line. "

[gmc]

spot;1184043 wrote: If you'd be so good as to put back my qualifier, "with the restriction that it guarantees fairness to all", you'll find I thereby excluded utilitaranism and anything else to do with the greater good at the expense of the few. Adding that qualifier is the standard Rawlsian adjustment. One needs, of course, to work out what's unfair given the ranges of society around the world. In general I'd put it as being so less endowed than the average as to be evidently poor in contrast. In the UK it would include healthcare, schooling, housing, subsistence and at least a bare real disposability to some remaining turnover however humble. Membership of the National Trust for oneself and any children, for example, is £62 a year, I wouldn't count that an unreasonable necessity.


I'm not ignoring your post I suspect however, we would end up taking the thread way off topic.

[spot]

gmc;1184497 wrote: I'm not ignoring your post I suspect however, we would end up taking the thread way off topic.


"We are All Socialist at Heart…it’s easier"? And we're discussing core definitions of socialism? I don't see how it could. I do note, though, that you're the one person in the thread prepared to discuss my points rather than leave them like sleeping elephants.

[gmc]

spot;1184500 wrote: "We are All Socialist at Heart…it’s easier"? And we're discussing core definitions of socialism? I don't see how it could. I do note, though, that you're the one person in the thread prepared to discuss my points rather than leave them like sleeping elephants.


I suspect you and I would end up writing long posts to each other arguing about what socialism means today and how it's changed over the years but we would be doing it from the standpoint of a shared heritage and understanding and interest in the politics of it all.

To most americans, however, and no offence intended to any american, socialism is synonymous with the revolutionary communism of stalin and lenin (without any appreciation of the difference between even those two) inevitably leading to dictatorship and control by the state and dependence on the government. Liberalism seems to be conflated with socialism and communism in a way that makes it difficult to talk round it. Since the original thread is by an american on a peculiarly american issue it seems to me it would be impolite to hijack the thread in that manner.

I find the discussions about the american healthcare system interesting as they are very similar to the debates we had back in 1947 with the big difference that the population here wanted radical change for reasons which are completely irrelevant and hard to relate to if you are not british. I don't understand why people would object to universal healthcare just as many americans don't understand why we would want it. Even those who would not call themselves socialist support the concept in the UK. It is no longer a peculiarly socialist policy in the UK and most of europe which notion freaks american out and they don't really believe when you point that out to them. European political parties also tend to be social democratic in outlook but not necessarily with the ultimate socialist end in mind.

We just don't look at things the same way, it's one of the reasons I like this forum-you end up talking(?) to people with completely alien world views-makes me think about why I think the way I do. (no I'm not suggesting Americans are space aliens so please don't take it that way)

[Accountable]

gmc;1184666 wrote: We just don't look at things the same way, it's one of the reasons I like this forum-you end up talking(?) to people with completely alien world views-makes me think about why I think the way I do. That's the best thing about forums for me as well. :-6

[Nomad]

Accountable;1183815 wrote:

The Persuit of Happyness is a true story of a man who took foolish chances with his life and the life of his son, but was able to triumph and make millions


So thats where happiness comes from......... pbbtttthhhh

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

I am learning that there are very different views on a subject depending on the side of the Atlantic you are on. There seems to be a very different perspective on many things and an acceptance of some things that are alien to the other side.

Health care is one of many. For example, Americans want it all, they want what they demand, they believe that the doctor is always right and the "insurance company" always wrong. They believe fundamentally that they should not have to pay for health care, hence "free" government care so they may be willing to have the cost buried in taxes which is probably one of the greatest risks in changing the system. The government can't control costs without some form of rationing, but no one wants to tell the American people that. Today Medicare shifts costs all the time to the private sector, they reduce fees to doctors and the doctors merely charge more to the rest of the population, but no one has asked what happens if there is no other system. Will US doctors be happy with an income more in line with Europe, who knows. My wife went to a doctor the other day and the office visit was $200. He refused to participate in any health plan and demanded payment immediately, he then ordered an x-ray and when that was not sufficient he ordered an MRI. In all we spent over a $1,000 so far. How do you cope with that in a universal system (rhetorical question).

I also do not understand this obsession with wealthy people. What is wrong with wealth and its accumulation as long as it is honest? Bill Gates is filthy rich, but he earned it. There are hundreds of millionaires at Microsoft from secretaries on up who took a change, got paid in stock and it paid off. So what, did they take from anyone else?

I understand the concept of government services and many are necessary as has been stated, but that is far different than attacking the rich. Even hedge fund managers who make billions make it by charging high fees to other investors, mostly other wealthy people and pension funds. If they are willing to pay such fees in return for above average returns on their investments whose business is it other than theirs?

When it comes to the wealth debate I detect a strong does of sour grapes and envy.

I must admit this is a personal issue with me. Forty-seven years ago I started out as the lowest paid person in a company with 15,000 employees. When I retired last year I was earning 20 from the top in that same organization. And yet when some people look at me it is like I rolled out of bed at 18 and instantly had what I have accumulated (and earned) over a lifetime of work and saving. So, now I am the target of the government for higher taxes, ineligible for this or that because by government standards I am wealthy. I never earned a million dollars or close to it, I don't have billions or millions, but I am still in the top 5% of Americans. So, am I and people like me bad guys, do we not deserve the fruits of our labor?

What would a true socialist say?

Isn't the real issue that everyone should have a fair and equal chance to achieve what they want, be it wealth or something else?

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

What would a true socialist say?




There's no such thing. You're not talking about a monolithic political theory.

Left wing parties tend to spend more time arguing with each other about what is the right way to do things rather than concentrate on the areas they agree on. Lenin coined the phrase an infantile disorder to describe the phenomenon. The communists were pretty good at shooting their fellow socialists because they didn't toe the party line it's an attitude that leads invariably to totalitarianism.

Think in terms of religuious sects-catholic and protestant fought each other over whose way was right yet they all had the same basic belief system. Power politics ruins everything.

One of the main reasons you never had communist revolutions in western europe-not that the possibility wasn't there- is an educated literate workforce is quite capable of working out where it's going to lead and what was going on in russia was widely known at the time. It didn't actually happen in isolation. We ended up with left wing political parties socialist in nature and social democratic in approach but not necessarily socialist as in the way most Americans would see it (IMO anyway). We kind of cherry pick the bits we like rather than buy the whole bush.

posted by quinns commentary

Isn't the real issue that everyone should have a fair and equal chance to achieve what they want, be it wealth or something else?


That's it exactly. The thing is you can get so hung up on the label out on a suggestion it can forestall rational discussion on the merits or otherwise of the suggestion. Comparisons with our or European welfare systems are only useful if you cherry pick the bits you like and that would work in the states without getting hung up on the ideaology behind it.

posted by quinns commentary

When it comes to the wealth debate I detect a strong does of sour grapes and envy.

I must admit this is a personal issue with me. Forty-seven years ago I started out as the lowest paid person in a company with 15,000 employees. When I retired last year I was earning 20 from the top in that same organization. And yet when some people look at me it is like I rolled out of bed at 18 and instantly had what I have accumulated (and earned) over a lifetime of work and saving. So, now I am the target of the government for higher taxes, ineligible for this or that because by government standards I am wealthy. I never earned a million dollars or close to it, I don't have billions or millions, but I am still in the top 5% of Americans. So, am I and people like me bad guys, do we not deserve the fruits of our labor?


It's something americans need to think about for themselves. We actively use our taxation sytem to re-distribute wealth. Our history is very different in that the decision was taken and widely supported, that one function of government is to make life better for people in all sections of society. Why we took that decision is not something that can be understood unless you are familiar with our history and society in a way that you can't be unless you live here. Well perhaps on an intellectual level perhaps you can but there is also a visceral element that i think is harder to grasp.

Objectively though. If you have a situation where the wealth of a nation is concentrated in a few powerful hands is that a good or a bad thing? Once upon a time it would have been kings and warlords. I doubt many would argue they should be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains and status.

I understand the concept of government services and many are necessary as has been stated, but that is far different than attacking the rich. Even hedge fund managers who make billions make it by charging high fees to other investors, mostly other wealthy people and pension funds. If they are willing to pay such fees in return for above average returns on their investments whose business is it other than theirs?


Now it's individuals and corporations. If the workers of a corporation have generated that wealth how much should they benefit from it? If the wealth has been generated by producing nothing but by buying and selling money is that morally right? Whom put the money in to the pension funds in the first place? What do you do about it.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Objectively though. If you have a situation where the wealth of a nation is concentrated in a few powerful hands is that a good or a bad thing? Once upon a time it would have been kings and warlords. I doubt many would argue they should be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains and status.


I have to harken back to the concept of how the wealth was accumulated. In your example, clearly ill gotten gains are one thing, while a Bill Gates scenario quite another. I hope no one would classify Gates as having benefited from ill gotten gains.

Now it's individuals and corporations. If the workers of a corporation have generated that wealth how much should they benefit from it? If the wealth has been generated by producing nothing but by buying and selling money is that morally right? Whom put the money in to the pension funds in the first place? What do you do about it.


Workers receive a fair wage for their input, more skill, more wage and they do benefit from the wealth generated by the corporation. they have a job, they have benefits (in most cases), etc. But workers who may work hard at a physical job cannot create wealth without the leaders who make it all come together. If they could then everyone would be an entrepreneur. Clearly workers should not be exploited in the name of the organization or its owners, but I don't see justification for more equal distribution of the wealth beyond fair pay based on skill and the input by the worker.

I don't see why there is a moral question regarding generating wealth from finance, buying and selling stocks, commodities or whatever. As far as pension funds go, in the vast majority of cases the employer put the money in the fund, which is a form of deferred wages for the workers.

[spot]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1187014 wrote: I don't see justification for more equal distribution of the wealth beyond fair pay based on skill and the input by the worker.It's called fair pay based on need. It's not the American Way, of course, but it's arguable and in Europe it's practiced at least to some extent. Capitalism died last year and thank goodness for that.

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

I have to harken back to the concept of how the wealth was accumulated. In your example, clearly ill gotten gains are one thing, while a Bill Gates scenario quite another. I hope no one would classify Gates as having benefited from ill gotten gains.


Well I would argue that some of microsofts' business practices have been unethical and most definitely anti capitalist in nature-allowing monopolies to develop is bad for business and there should be legislation in place to prevent it-in fact the US has some of the toughest anti-trust laws around but they seem loathe to use it to curb Microsoft. Instead of trying to stifle competition they should have tried competing on an equal basis-just think how good things might have been if hey devoted their expertise to product. So ill-gotten gains? another thread perhaps.

posted by quinns commentary

I don't see why there is a moral question regarding generating wealth from finance, buying and selling stocks, commodities or whatever. As far as pension funds go, in the vast majority of cases the employer put the money in the fund, which is a form of deferred wages for the workers.




At the heart of any economic system are people who make or grow things to sell. Yo need a structure to get those things to market to service the demand and perhaps create but those who just manipulate the money market to make a profit are in a sense parasites. No one will miss fund managers but you will miss the engineers and scientists that create and make things work. We ended up feting the money men beyond their true worth. It's not the accountant that makes a company profitable it's the one that started it and the ones that make the things it sells. What's happened is that the money makers have created a massive finance bubble selling things to each other are inflated prices making money as they go. a property bubble was created that finally burst because the underlying asset was worthless. The bankers have no excuse and can't claim they didn't know what was happening.

You can generate as much money as you like but unless it s being used to create and make things it's useless. Individuals get wealthy not society as a whole. It's not so much a moral question as one whether allowing it to go to the extreme it did is actually good for society. I think it's a case that the churning of money to generate profit became the purpose rather than a means to an end. You need capital to lend to businesses but when short term gain is the only criteria and it's economists calling the tune you are stuffed. Not one single major company in the US was started by a business graduate or an economist-so far as I know anyway correct me if I am wrong.

posted by spot

It's called fair pay based on need. It's not the American Way, of course, but it's arguable and in Europe it's practiced at least to some extent. Capitalism died last year and thank goodness for that.


It's not actually the UK way either-fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Utopian socialism always was a fantasy doomed to fail.

No it didn't die, it was corporatism that died. Maybe now the US and Europe will go back to old fashioned capitalism with markets regulated to curb monopolies and cartels developing and political parties not beholden to big contributors or in thrall to economists with no understanding of basic arithmetic. (in the olden days priests used to cut open chickens to look at the entrails and predict the future and people all around said-they are intelligent they must know what they are doing. Nowadays we have economists with spreadsheets but the basic principle seems to remain the same and just as reliable)

Monetarism is arguably anti capitalist in nature, you generate wealth by making things and selling them not by relying on controlling the money supply and allowing companies to shelter from the winds of competition.

Look at the american car companies. they used their political clout to try and keep out foreign competition and stall legislation that would have made them build more fuel efficient cars and keep a market for their cars that was in reality not really there any more. In europe they can make competitive cars but when yopu see an american made chrysler next to a european or even korean car you can see what the difference is in quality. There's a garage near me with a combined chrysler, citroen and hyundai dealership. They can't sell things like the chrysler sebring for instance even with buy one get one free offer. It's like a car from the nineties. Nice leather seats mind you bit less leg room in the back than the smallest european car-are you all midgets?

posted by quinns commentary

but I don't see justification for more equal distribution of the wealth beyond fair pay based on skill and the input by the worker.


Our different histories come in to it. We had a situation-as in europe-where a ruling elite held all the power and wealth while the vast majority of the population lived in squalor and factory owners exploited the workforce unmercifully . It's been taken off them in the interests of social justice but there's generations of change in all of that and a shared experience that might be hard t grasp without spending some time reading up on UK social history. We started the industrial revolution remember, europe followed suit then the US. The kind of discussions you are now having about universal healthcare and so forth we had sixty or so years ago. Nor have you had the experience of rebuilding towns and cities and a society that was shattered by warfare.

The oft quoted comment by karl marx that all property is theft was actually about the practice common in europe in the 1840's of powerful landowners enclosing common land and forcing tenants off their farms in to the cities so they could farm in an industrial manner. they stole what wasn't theirs in the first place and the land they rented out had been stolen by their warlord ancestors at some point in the past. Since land is the basis of all wealth that's where the sentiment comes from. those who held vast acres had taken it by force and then convinced everybody it was legitimately theirs. Maybe we still have an inbuilt resentment of people who accumulate wealth and do nothing with it except hoard it. The idea that wealth trickles down is nonsense-is gets scooped up from those above if you're not careful.

You have a similar thing in the states your popular literature is full of stories about nesters fending off the land grabbing cattle baron. Carpet baggers as well? Now you have corporations strip mining whole mountaintops and polluting water courses regardless of what those who live there might feel about it. What's the difference in practice? those at the bottom are helpless unless they band together to control big business but then that makes them anti capitalist socialist types doesn't it? Have you been conned in to thinking you shouldn't complain and demand a fairer deal for all and a greater share of the nations wealth.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

You know, the world is not a nice place or a fair place, it has always been so and will be so forever. Each society has social structures and classes, the have, the have not and the have most. That too will never change because those qualities are inherent in human beings.

In a good society the have nots get a fair chance to move up the ladder, in my mind in a fair society those that do move up and accumulate some wealth are viewed as successful not as a class from which to redistribute that wealth. Of course, that implies a fair tax structure along the way with all members of society sharing the responsibilities.

In a fair society the unfortunate and those that cannot help themselves are supported by the collective society, but the structure does encourage such dependency.

I find it interesting that in the US those that cry the loudest for wealth redistribution and social programs have largely made their fortunes, in some cases the result of their previous government "service." The current White House is full of such people, yet they dare to call those who earn $250,000 (or in some cases $100,000) a year wealthy when they have millions already in the bank. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House is worth an estimate $16 million. That's fine her family earned it, but the same opportunity should not be taken from others. Obama's Chief of Staff is worth about $7 million made mostly using his contacts during a previous period in government. That's OK too, I would do the same thing. Warren Buffet is in favor of an estate tax, easy to say when you have $50 billion and intend to donate it to charity, not so nice if you have a small business to pass down or you want to help your grandchildren get a start in life and you are able to do that as opposed to paying taxes to the federal and state governments on money that has already been taxes several times along the way.

The point is that society has no obligation to people other than to provide common services for all, infrasturucture, education, defense, etc and to assure that the truly needed do not suffer. If a person lives his life and uses his capabilities and sets his priorities such that he is low income, so be it. If another person does the same thing and takes advantage fairly of each opportunity and is successful so be it. They have no obligation to the other person in my view.

It was mentioned that corporations exploit, harm the environment, etc. Corporations are legal entities they do nothing, the people who run them do all that stuff and should be accountable. the same holds true for governments, they do nothing the people who run them do. The problem is that we are very bad at holding politicians and beauracrats responsible for anything and they act accordingly.

It seems to me that a society that collectively depends more and more on services from government becomes so dependent on that government they risk their own independence at some point. In addition, the "free" mentatility for government services dampens the human spirit of achievement, individual responsibility and risk taking. More and more people become complacent and fewer break those bounds to move the society forward. I think some countries in Europe show that attitude. Marching in the streets for false job security and more government services while the population and productivity are declining just isn't' a good thing in my view.

[spot]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1187455 wrote: The point is that society has no obligation to people other than to provide common services for all, infrasturucture, education, defense, etc and to assure that the truly needed do not suffer.It depends entirely on how you view society. Jesus disagrees with you at an absolutely fundamental level, for example. So do I, for similar reasons.

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

I have to harken back to the concept of how the wealth was accumulated. In your example, clearly ill gotten gains are one thing, while a Bill Gates scenario quite another. I hope no one would classify Gates as having benefited from ill gotten gains.


Considering the number of times Microsoft has been fined-not just in america but all around the world- for anti-competitive practices like deliberately setting out to destroy other companies with better products it's kind of a moot point. How many livelihoods and great companies has he destroyed? But he always bleats he's just being picked on. Microsoft is a classic example of why you need anti-trust laws. A capitalist economy can't allow companies like microsoft to get away with it. Intel are at it as well-looks like the EU is about to impose a massive fine on them for using their market clout to try and shut out AMD.

posted by quinns commentary

In a good society the have nots get a fair chance to move up the ladder, in my mind in a fair society those that do move up and accumulate some wealth are viewed as successful not as a class from which to redistribute that wealth. Of course, that implies a fair tax structure along the way with all members of society sharing the responsibilities.

In a fair society the unfortunate and those that cannot help themselves are supported by the collective society, but the structure does encourage such dependency.


Who gets to decide what is fair? take education for example, should only the rich get to college or should you have some means to ensure that all get a fair chance at it regardless of the wealth of their parents. I happen to live in a country where free and compulsory education to at least primary level has been the norm for two or three hundred years with ready access to university for those who could pay to attend lectures. When you look at the numbers of scots behind the scientific and engineering developments that have shaped the modern world the benefits are incalculable. Look round your house-I can guarantee that you will find at least two things that owe their existence to a scot somewhere along the line.

postd by quinns commentary

In a fair society the unfortunate and those that cannot help themselves are supported by the collective society, but the structure does encourage such dependency


Why on earth do you think that? Surely it depends on how you structure things in the first place.

The point is that society has no obligation to people other than to provide common services for all, infrastructure, education, defense, etc and to assure that the truly needed do not suffer. If a person lives his life and uses his capabilities and sets his priorities such that he is low income, so be it. If another person does the same thing and takes advantage fairly of each opportunity and is successful so be it. They have no obligation to the other person in my view.


Except to have a society where everyone is given e same chance. Your view on income is interesting-are you saying that someone who chooses to become a nurse and -earns less that say a TV presenter or a lap dancer that person is somehow a failure? or that the guy emptying the bins is somehow of lesser value than a hedge fund manager. Which is more valuable to society? We can live without tv presenters and fund managers but you would notice if there were no nurses or bin men. That some people earn more than other doesn't reflect on theior worth or capabilities as human beings. Do you not have an obligation to everybody in society just as they do to you?

posted by quinns commentary

It was mentioned that corporations exploit, harm the environment, etc. Corporations are legal entities they do nothing, the people who run them do all that stuff and should be accountable. the same holds true for governments, they do nothing the people who run them do. The problem is that we are very bad at holding politicians and beauracrats responsible for anything and they act accordingly.


So you need to have some means of holding politicians and companies to account for what they do and the ability to impose severe enough sanctions on them that they will be forced to behave.

You have anti-trust laws and environmental legislation but also a culture that tries to portray such laws as interfering with business-socialistic in nature and giving too much power to government and corporations that buy off politicians to weaken or abandon such legislation. Environmentalists are tree-hugging lunatics that are part of a left wing conspiracy to destroy the american economy. Who decided that was fair? Who has the power and how do you stop those who would take it and use for their own benefit. The arguments has been going on since time immemorial socialism is just one line of it.

posted by quinns commentary

It seems to me that a society that collectively depends more and more on services from government becomes so dependent on that government they risk their own independence at some point. In addition, the "free" mentatility for government services dampens the human spirit of achievement, individual responsibility and risk taking. More and more people become complacent and fewer break those bounds to move the society forward. I think some countries in Europe show that attitude. Marching in the streets for false job security and more government services while the population and productivity are declining just isn't' a good thing in my view.


You do actually have a good point there but it's not so much dependence on government as forgetting that we can't all work for it. Someone needs to -generate wealth from somewhere. It's not just socialism that is a problem though, for a while there there was the notion that we didn't need industry and we could all survive and do well in an economy that revolved around financial services and selling each other mortgages. Monetarism is going to go down as one of the sillier economic theories. Most european nations cherry pick bits from socialism-so do americans -at it's heart is the basic idea that the people should rule and all are born equal entitled to be free to live our lives as we choose. We should all have a chance. That's where it all stems from, who rules, who decides what is fair? I would put it tp you the final say should not rest with corporations or politicians (OK maybe the latter but only if they really understand who they work for) or Politics is how argue about the ways to that end and socialism is just one aspect of it. All of them now reject one of the major tenets of it that the state should own everything. it just doesn't work all you do is create a new set of masters that take everything. power is an end in itself to some people.

Political theories aren't a religion-though you would think they are the way some people go on about them. pick the bits that you think will work. Why should a label put you off doing something.

[Snowfire]

[QUOTE=gmc;1187905

Intel are at it as well-looks like the EU is about to impose a massive fine on them for using their market clout to try and shut out AMD.




The EU executive found Intel guilty of paying computer makers to postpone or cancel plans to launch products that used AMD chips, paid secret rebates to computer makers to use Intel chips, and paid a major retailer to stock only computers with its chips.

PC Pro: News: Intel fined $1.5bn for "harming millions" of PC buyers

[gmc]

Snowfire;1187983 wrote: The EU executive found Intel guilty of paying computer makers to postpone or cancel plans to launch products that used AMD chips, paid secret rebates to computer makers to use Intel chips, and paid a major retailer to stock only computers with its chips.

PC Pro: News: Intel fined $1.5bn for "harming millions" of PC buyers


from the article

We are confident that the worldwide microprocessor market is functioning normally and is highly competitive in Europe and elsewhere. Intel's conduct has always been lawful, pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers," the company says.




Yeah right, just like microsoft. It's hard to know whether they actually believe what they say and think fair competition in a capitalist economy means you set out to destroy the competition rather than compete with it fairly. It's bad for business generally and the consumer if companies get away with it.

Intel fined $26 million for Korean antitrust violations - Ars Technica

Thus far, Intel's response has been been a bog-standard rehash of Intel's firm commitment to business practices that are fair and pro-competitive. If that line is beginning to wear a bit thin, it's because we've heard it so often over the past three years. Korea is the second nation to rule against Intel in an antitrust investigation; Japan's Fair Trade Commission found similar evidence of monopolistic abuse back in 2005. Intel, thus far, has met every investigation and every finding with the same "We love fair competition" reply. Unfortunately for the chipmaker, regulators around the world aren't in agreement.

Japan and Korea are not the only places where Intel's actions are being scrutinized; both the EU and the state of New York are currently investigating allegations that the company has abused its market position. The EU decision is currently expected to arrive before the end of September; its findings (and potential penalties) could dwarf those of the Japanese or Korean FTC. The EU has the right to fine a company up to 10 percent of its annual revenue (maximum fine of €2.6 billion). Even if found guilty, Intel would almost certainly not be penalized so harshly, but the European Commission's decision to fine Microsoft some $800 million earlier this year is proof that the EC is willing to play hardball if it feels the situation warrants it.

The Korean FTC's decision will have no practical impact on the AMD-Intel antitrust case; AMD has already been barred from introducing international findings as evidence against Intel. The court of public opinion, however, operates under no such restriction. If—and I say "if" for a reason—the EU rules against Intel later this year, it could spur a fresh wave of investigations into behavior Intel steadfastly defends as being fair, procompetitive, and in the best interest of consumers.


I can see why new york state are getting involved-they have jobs at stake.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

gmc;1187905 wrote: posted by quinns commentary



You have anti-trust laws and environmental legislation but also a culture that tries to portray such laws as interfering with business-socialistic in nature and giving too much power to government and corporations that buy off politicians to weaken or abandon such legislation. Environmentalists are tree-hugging lunatics that are part of a left wing conspiracy to destroy the american economy. Who decided that was fair? Who has the power and how do you stop those who would take it and use for their own benefit. The arguments has been going on since time immemorial socialism is just one line of it.

posted by quinns commentary



You do actually have a good point there but it's not so much dependence on government as forgetting that we can't all work for it. Someone needs to -generate wealth from somewhere. It's not just socialism that is a problem though, for a while there there was the notion that we didn't need industry and we could all survive and do well in an economy that revolved around financial services and selling each other mortgages. Monetarism is going to go down as one of the sillier economic theories. Most european nations cherry pick bits from socialism-so do americans -at it's heart is the basic idea that the people should rule and all are born equal entitled to be free to live our lives as we choose. We should all have a chance. That's where it all stems from, who rules, who decides what is fair? I would put it tp you the final say should not rest with corporations or politicians (OK maybe the latter but only if they really understand who they work for) or Politics is how argue about the ways to that end and socialism is just one aspect of it. All of them now reject one of the major tenets of it that the state should own everything. it just doesn't work all you do is create a new set of masters that take everything. power is an end in itself to some people.

Political theories aren't a religion-though you would think they are the way some people go on about them. pick the bits that you think will work. Why should a label put you off doing something.


Considering the number of times Microsoft has been fined-not just in America but all around the world- for anti-competitive practices like deliberately setting out to destroy other companies with better products it's kind of a moot point. How many livelihoods and great companies has he destroyed? But he always bleats he's just being picked on. Microsoft is a classic example of why you need anti-trust laws. A capitalist economy can't allow companies like Microsoft to get away with it. Intel are at it as well-looks like the EU is about to impose a massive fine on them for using their market clout to try and shut out AMD.

AS you point they apparently have not gotten away with it. I still say the creation of new technology and all that goes with it far out weighs these issues which likely occurred long after Microsoft created the business in the first place.

Who gets to decide what is fair? take education for example, should only the rich get to college or should you have some means to ensure that all get a fair chance at it regardless of the wealth of their parents. I happen to live in a country where free and compulsory education to at least primary level has been the norm for two or three hundred years with ready access to university for those who could pay to attend lectures. When you look at the numbers of scots behind the scientific and engineering developments that have shaped the modern world the benefits are incalculable. Look round your house-I can guarantee that you will find at least two things that owe their existence to a scot somewhere along the line.

Of course only the rich should not be the one to go to college and in the US anyone with the right stuff can go to college if they want to. I went to college for nine years at night, paid in part by spending two years in the army. My four children went to private schools, I mortgage my hose twice to make that happen and ten years after the youngest graduated I am still paying off the loans, but it happened. In the US the biggest problem is that 40% of students drop out of high school and in some urban areas it is 70% drop out rate, that is outrageous and dangerous.

Why on earth do you think that? Surely it depends on how you structure things in the first place.

Your right it does depend on how the system is structured and that is what I meant to say.

Except to have a society where everyone is given e same chance. Your view on income is interesting-are you saying that someone who chooses to become a nurse and -earns less that say a TV presenter or a lap dancer that person is somehow a failure? or that the guy emptying the bins is somehow of lesser value than a hedge fund manager. Which is more valuable to society? We can live without tv presenters and fund managers but you would notice if there were no nurses or bin men. That some people earn more than other doesn't reflect on their worth or capabilities as human beings. Do you not have an obligation to everybody in society just as they do to you?



I am not saying that at all, I am saying that each person defines success in their own way and it is not always nor should it be money. There are many lower income jobs that have more value and contribute more to society than some jobs making big bucks.

So you need to have some means of holding politicians and companies to account for what they do and the ability to impose severe enough sanctions on them that they will be forced to behave.

I agree but that never seems to happen

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

spot;1187038 wrote: It's called fair pay based on need. It's not the American Way, of course, but it's arguable and in Europe it's practiced at least to some extent. Capitalism died last year and thank goodness for that.


As Mark Twain said, the reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

How do you define "based on need?" Didn't I say society should provide for those in need?

[gmc]

posted by quinns commentary

AS you point they apparently have not gotten away with it. I still say the creation of new technology and all that goes with it far out weighs these issues which likely occurred long after Microsoft created the business in the first place.


The point is how much development and progress has microsoft stymied? How many jobs has they cost. Intel are trying to bankrupt AMD what do you think would happen to prices if they have no competition? That is why monopolies or cartels are bad-they bend the market to suit their bottom line and to the detriment of the consumer. They act to prevent innovation and competition. Microsoft aren't getting away with it in the eu, eu, korea and japan but they bleat it is just anti Americanism (completely ignoring the fact that the EU also heavily fined european companies for anti competitive practices as well) and drag things out hoping the rival companies will fail in the meantime. Netscape won their case but by the time they did they were out of business despite having a better product. Microsoft may have helped make the PC commonplace but they've been using their market power to leave people with no choice-try buying a computer without windows-you have top pay a tax to microsoft whether you want to or not, they deliberately design their operating system so it doesn't work with rival software to curb free competition not because they offer the best prioduct. They are bad for business and their practices are anti-capitalist in nature and destroy the free market in computer software.

It's the same with companies that buy up patents to stop someone developing them or tie up rival companies in litigation they know the rival can' afford to either stop their entry or force them out of business-look at dyson for instance, he approached some of the big vacuum cleaner manufacturers and all they saw is they would lose profit on the sale of bags then they tried to pinch his patent and tied him up for years in court to try and stop innovation.

State control isn't good for the economy neither are monoploies and cartels. It's something that should concern you as you are now bailing out car companies that preferred to get legislation changed so they wouldn't have to produce more efficient engines and keep out foreign made cars rather than compete with them. If they had had to compete fairly they might still be competitive.

I am not saying that at all, I am saying that each person defines success in their own way and it is not always nor should it be money. There are many lower income jobs that have more value and contribute more to society than some jobs making big bucks.


Didn't think you were-but should those in lower paid jobs be deprived of healthcare because they can't pay for it. (bear in mind I do not really know how such things work in the states, you hear stories of people going bankrupt and becoming destitute trying to pay hospital bills how true that is i don't really know)

posted by quinns commentary

So you need to have some means of holding politicians and companies to account for what they do and the ability to impose severe enough sanctions on them that they will be forced to behave.

I agree but that never seems to happen


It seems societies go back on forth-you get a culture where corruption and exploitation becomes acceptable then the people get annoyed and pull things the other way for a while then the cycle repeats itself over and over again. There is no one solution imo. A hundred years ago neither of our countries were democracies with universal suffrage and all the freedoms we now take for granted, 150 years ago you still had slavery- so things do progress. With the election of Obama you seem to have stopped what looked like progress towards a fascist state. That a country like the US can elect a black president would have been inconceivable not so long ago. nation talks to nation and people to people (we wouldn't have been doing this ten years ago) that's progress as well.

Actually I could give you countless examples where politicians have been held to account and things changed for the better, lurched backwards and then gone on again. Most of them would be UK based though but just think of things like the civil rights movement and suffrage for women in the states.

Our democracy on the other hand is in deep **** but that will be sorted because the people have had enough, I don't think our politicians grasp the extent of the anger yet.

I've got no time for political panaceas, I like some aspects of socialism but reject it as a complete solution just as outright market capitalism across all aspects of society as touted by the right is not a solution either. Cherry pick the best bits.

I think the more you know-read and study etc the less likely you are to think you have all the answers. When you talk to somebody with strong opinions either of the right or the left you realise they know a lot less than they think they do and sometimes haven't learned to think for themselves and are generally speaking impressed with their own perspicacity and wisdom. Bit like religion-they are right because they know.

Capitalism isn't dead but maybe you need to let socialism flower a bit in the states. A forest with only one plant is not much of forest. (that sounds really profound doesn't it?)

posted by spot

It depends entirely on how you view society. Jesus disagrees with you at an absolutely fundamental level, for example. So do I, for similar reasons.


What you are the son of god?:yh_rotfl(sorry couldn't resist the temptation)