Proof that Social Democracy works [Archive]

Lurker

27 Oct 2006, 12:50 AM

Three of them were also under Nazi Germany's thumb.

Coincidence?

I THINK NOT.

It's not a coincidence that most of the countries are social democracies, if that's what you're getting at. Taxation and redistribution of monies by an open, fair, and responsible government ensures that everyone has an equal shot at health care, education, decent housing. One-upping everyone else financially only ensures that one individual/family has too much, which will not even necessarily lead to what I call "pure" happiness. Excessive financial competitvenes leads to a higher crime rate because certain people are always being screwed. Humans are selfish and jealous by nature, so an impartial body - like an elected government - should reduce the source of bitterness. Humans cannot live up to their potential when they are consumed by envy, greed, and want during their waking hours.

MacGuffin

27 Oct 2006, 12:51 AM

It's not a coincidence that most of the countries are social democracies, if that's what you're getting at.
I was saying Business Week wants us to kill all the Jews.

Lurker

27 Oct 2006, 12:58 AM

Yeah, you notice how small population all of these countries has? All but Canada are under 10M. Social democracies are easier in countries where people are held more accountable for their own actions. Meaning 1 person in Denmark is a must larger percentage of the whole than in the USA (factor of 60).

I'm not sure that it could work in the USA (public health being a good topic to converse about), maybe if the states have more power...

Plus, reasons why I loved Scandinavia and advice for all INTP's to go when the oppotunity exists.

Yes, small population is a big factor in social cohesion and identity. I don't see why people couldn't be held accountable for their own actions in large populations - in the U.S., the government is fittingly broken down into state and local branches, and they seem to hold people very accountable.

I don't think the states should have more power, because they would be subject to the cultural whims of their citizens. Yes, that seems contradictory, but I don't believe it really is....for instance, in the southeast, poor people regularly vote against their own self-interests on the basis on wedge issues or religion; therefore, they are not educated enough to be responsible for themselves. The southeast is overwhelmingly conservative, yet I doubt that most people here are "happy." Instead, they seem to resent the government and their station in life.

Really, different sections of the U.S. could almost break off into separate nations, which might not be such a bad idea for the people. True, the U.S. wouldn't have the collective power of 50 states in its arsenal, but social cohesion and cooperation would be much improved if - for instance - Alabama did not share a national identity with California.

Lurker

27 Oct 2006, 12:59 AM

I was saying Business Week wants us to kill all the Jews.

I'm not taking that bait.

(I never got around to answering the doctor as to why I believe Israelis act like victims, but I will. One day. :) )

booyalab

27 Oct 2006, 01:08 AM

Adam Smith? The Invisible Hand? Hard Capitalism?

Not the best option for happiness:

uh, did you read the article?

Capitalism, meanwhile, fared quite well. Free-market systems are sometimes blamed for producing unhappiness due to insecurity and competition, but the U.S. was no.23 and all the top-ranking European countries are firmly capitalist-albeit of a social-democratic flavor.

Lurker

27 Oct 2006, 01:13 AM

uh, did you read the article?

I certainly did; however, I maintain that Swiss, Icelandic, Finnish, et al social democracy is...ehhh....more than a wee bit different from United States capitalism? :)

And, most importantly, number 23 for the "free world" that prides itself on, you know, liberty and happiness, plain sucks!

PS - You quoted me, but apparently you didn't read the quote. I said HARD capitalism.

Leftfield

27 Oct 2006, 01:21 AM

Yes, small population is a big factor in social cohesion and identity. I don't see why people couldn't be held accountable for their own actions in large populations - in the U.S., the government is fittingly broken down into state and local branches, and they seem to hold people very accountable.

I don't think the states should have more power, because they would be subject to the cultural whims of their citizens. Yes, that seems contradictory, but I don't believe it really is....for instance, in the southeast, poor people regularly vote against their own self-interests on the basis on wedge issues or religion; therefore, they are not educated enough to be responsible for themselves. The southeast is overwhelmingly conservative, yet I doubt that most people here are "happy." Instead, they seem to resent the government and their station in life.

Really, different sections of the U.S. could almost break off into separate nations, which might not be such a bad idea for the people. True, the U.S. wouldn't have the collective power of 50 states in its arsenal, but social cohesion and cooperation would be much improved if - for instance - Alabama did not share a national identity with California.

Exactly, the deviance of an Alabama vs. California is a good example, plus that there are 300 million people and a large percentage of these citizens are of different races and background, some mixed. I see the top 12 countries all holding similar views as a collective across the board.

Reasons why Germany, France, England, Japan, or any larger scale or more powerful country did not make the cut.

Reminds me of my friend in Philly who sees this utopian place in America where shared values, norms, etc... exists. We will be far away till we have a unified view in this country... and we can thank both the socio-ecomic class differences, the political left and right, and big business / capitalism for the demise...

...and most importantly, God Bless America!

Stoic

27 Oct 2006, 01:23 AM

uh, did you read the article?

A social democratic flavor? No. They are social democracies. You can have a capitlaist system inside a social democratic one.

Lurker

27 Oct 2006, 01:31 AM

Exactly, the deviance of an Alabama vs. California is a good example, plus that there are 300 million people and a large percentage of these citizens are of different races and background, some mixed. I see the top 12 countries all holding similar views as a collective across the board.

Reasons why Germany, France, England, Japan, or any larger scale or more powerful country did not make the cut.

Reminds me of my friend in Philly who sees this utopian place in America where shared values, norms, etc... exists. We will be far away till we have a unified view in this country... and we can thank both the socio-ecomic class differences, the political left and right, and big business / capitalism for the demise...

...and most importantly, God Bless America!

I don't know about all that stuff in bold, but I do agree with your basic idea that of cultural differences being a divisive factor. Still, do you believe that's the main difference? Ireland was listed as number 12, despite the conflicts between protestants and catholics. I'm not sure that all of the countries in the top ten are completely culturally unified. In fact, I'm pretty sure they aren't. And England has a strong national identity, yet it was in the 40s. Plus, there are many other small nations that are more or less culturally cohesive, yet they aren't the "happiest." Seems to me like there are many factors at play.

C.J.Woolf

27 Oct 2006, 03:24 AM

Social democracy is natural for Scandinavians because they were socialists before the term was invented. Clans shared their resources, and leaders were expected to be generous.

I notice that almost every country on the list is ethnically homogeneous. People share with "us" more willingly than with "them". The southeastern US is a fucked-up region largely because it's Ground Zero of the ultimate us-them divide, white vs. black.

MacGuffin

27 Oct 2006, 03:28 AM

I notice that almost every country on the list is ethnically homogeneous.
Yes, that. I thought of that on the way home. Notice the EU countries dealing with a large Islamic immigrant population aren't up near the top.

I often wonder how those Northern European and Asian countries would deal with the U.S. population and history. 150 years removed from slavery. Large minority populations. No real history of deferring to authority, totalitarian or otherwise.

Stoic

27 Oct 2006, 04:15 AM

Would anyone like to tell me how universal health care, putting a cap on working hours, expanding vacation time, providing baby sitting for workers, and giving more benefits out in general would backfire?

Sure, the 1% of the country that owns 40% might lose a little cash, but fuck them. It would raise our quality of life.

Huston

27 Oct 2006, 04:22 AM

Yes, that. I thought of that on the way home. Notice the EU countries dealing with a large Islamic immigrant population aren't up near the top.

You mean Denmark has had no problems with Islamic immigrants? Actually that should be the global population of Muslims in general.

The only countries that out do Muslim % is the Netherlands and well... everyone knows about France at 5 and 10% (Odd how every other country that beat France are countries that actually have native Muslim populations) respectively.

Denmark, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden are all around 3%. About the same as the UK, which is only 2.5%

As for Ethnic homogenous for Wolf.. that isn't true for Canada or Brunei, but you said almost.. so those are exceptions.

Leftfield

27 Oct 2006, 04:49 AM

Sure, the 1% of the country that owns 40% might lose a little cash, but fuck them. It would raise our quality of life.

I think a lot of this has to do with American pride in material assets and desire to succeed. If you started a business from scratch and owned 30% of it at $15k of a $50k equity positioned business.

Fast-forward 20 years to a 250M business in which you own 75M of it... would you really want to give any of that up since the you've always owned 30% stake or bought back / invested shared to keep it at 30%. Assuming balanced financing and all.

It is selfish, but most businesses start out this way, a bank, a few people with cash and an exceptional idea. Building personal equity via a low bank interest rate is fine if you know you can let it ride.

Just speaking from an entreprenuerial standpoint.

Stoic

27 Oct 2006, 04:57 AM

I think a lot of this has to do with American pride in material assets and desire to succeed. If you started a business from scratch and owned 30% of it at $15k of a $50k equity positioned business.

Fast-forward 20 years to a 250M business in which you own 75M of it... would you really want to give any of that up since the you've always owned 30% stake or bought back / invested shared to keep it at 30%. Assuming balanced financing and all.

It is selfish, but most businesses start out this way, a bank, a few people with cash and an exceptional idea. Building personal equity via a low bank interest rate is fine if you know you can let it ride.

Just speaking from an entreprenuerial standpoint.

From what I've heard, and I might be able to find stats that back this up; if you want to live the American dream, you are better off moving to Europe. Supposedly, it's easier to move up the social and economic ladder there. Which I think makes sense, since the would-be poor people in Europe are given so many opprtunities there that they would not receive here.

Also, the idea that you can become super-rish one day, is I think, at least partly instilled in us by the rich class, so we'll be more passive towards them. Of course it's possible, but if you ask people if they think they will be rich one day, many will say yes, when in reality it won't happen for all but a few of them.

But yeah I think the the materialistic way of Americans also have to do with it.

Hustler

27 Oct 2006, 05:12 AM

I have yet to see any proof in this thread or the linked article that social democracy works.

Leftfield

27 Oct 2006, 05:19 AM

From what I've heard, and I might be able to find stats that back this up; if you want to live the American dream, you are better off moving to Europe.

I am thinking two things right now:

The American Dream could then be an American myth, or

it is not a myth because of all of the restraints within the EU, mainly the corporate tax rates are higher in such countries.

* Unless you produce in something like Monaco to work the tax-shield in your favor. International Accounting is something I have limited exposure to.

Stoic

27 Oct 2006, 05:24 AM

I have yet to see any proof in this thread or the linked article that social democracy works.

How do you define "a political system that works"?

Does the 'average-quality-of-life' of the nation in question fit into that equation?

Stoic

27 Oct 2006, 05:28 AM

I am thinking two things right now:

The American Dream could then be an American myth, or

it is not a myth because of all of the restraints within the EU, mainly the corporate tax rates are higher in such countries.

* Unless you produce in something like Monaco to work the tax-shield in your favor. International Accounting is something I have limited exposure to.

Maybe the American dream could be just that; a dream.

But if the American dream means being super-rich, yeah that probably happens more in America, but if it just means to have a successful life and maybe moving up the economic and social ladder a few notches, then no.

Architectonic

27 Oct 2006, 09:00 AM

MasterMerk

27 Oct 2006, 10:59 AM

It's all about access to the essentials. Statistically IIRC, after a certain amount of wealth is attained to ensure this access, the average person won't gain any more satisfaction from any excess wealth. To add to this, ensuring higher equality means less is more, and hence people will be satisfied with less of a relative edge on their competitors compared to countries with less equally distrubted wealth.

A sense of social cohesion is important, it doesn't matter who you are. Naturally this doesn't work out as well in large, centrally ruled populations, as there are bound to be many dissenters from the general rule. Combined with the higher equality, the low populations of these countries naturally help in that respect as to tie in a cultural identity of sorts. The propensity towards pseudo-nationalism is an important issue for me, as I'm for multi-culturalism (in the sense that I'm for people living wherever and however they wish), but anti-state. Decentralising innefficient and artificial barriers would have the affect of bringing communities together, IMO, and allowing for freer terms of dissent - I take Luxembourg (while still a state) as a prime example. Small scale, egalitarian societies fare better overall than centralised authoritarian bohemoths.

The USA is an example country that promises more than it delivers. An influx of competing tribes thrown into the same dish and taught to walk all over eachother to reach the prize, the existing inequalities causing all manners of fearmongering against the "other" and infighting between groups. This is a gigantic but ultimately constrictive environment where multi-culturalism cannot flourish towards peaceful ends, IMO.

ApeTheDog

27 Oct 2006, 11:50 AM

I am yet to see any proof that capitalistic governments work.

geniusndisguise

27 Oct 2006, 01:14 PM

From what I've heard, and I might be able to find stats that back this up; if you want to live the American dream, you are better off moving to Europe. Supposedly, it's easier to move up the social and economic ladder there. Which I think makes sense, since the would-be poor people in Europe are given so many opprtunities there that they would not receive here.

Also, the idea that you can become super-rish one day, is I think, at least partly instilled in us by the rich class, so we'll be more passive towards them. Of course it's possible, but if you ask people if they think they will be rich one day, many will say yes, when in reality it won't happen for all but a few of them.

But yeah I think the the materialistic way of Americans also have to do with it.

I know plenty of people who came here with literally nothing and now would be considered rich. No schooling, just hard work and a little luck. It's all propaganda that the American dream is dead.

Dom

27 Oct 2006, 01:22 PM

I know plenty of people who came here with literally nothing and now would be considered rich. No schooling, just hard work and a little luck. It's all propaganda that the American dream is dead.

:huh:

I think that today it is hard to live that dream than it was in the past... so much hard to come up with an idea that could generate large amounts of cash with hard work alone, most require CAPITAL to stand a hope these days!

;)

I remember listening to one entrepreneur (UK) who started a chain of chemists (pharmacies) over here. His story starts with, "I bought my first chemists in 1974 for ?6000" Now in todays terms I have no clue what ?6000 would be but I know people were buying a house like my old one for around ?2500 (I just sold mine for ?142000) My first question would have been where did you get ?6000....

His answer (to someone else who thought like me..) Save a bit, borrowed a little from banks he could convince, and the majority (Some ?5000) he borrowed from his family.....

Now he eventually built an empire worth millions, but he still had access to reasonable levels of capital to begin with!!

Architectonic

27 Oct 2006, 01:23 PM

I am yet to see any proof that capitalistic governments work.

What do you mean by 'work' anyway? Or 'capitalistic government' for that matter...

geniusndisguise

27 Oct 2006, 01:25 PM

:huh:

I think that today it is hard to live that dream than it was in the past... so much hard to come up with an idea that could generate large amounts of cash with hard work alone, most require CAPITAL to stand a hope these days!

Live very very simply, save most of your money and work hard. That's how most people do it. It's not easy. It's how bad you want it.

Dom

27 Oct 2006, 01:34 PM

Live very very simply, save most of your money and work hard. That's how most people do it. It's not easy. It's how bad you want it.

I don't think it is solely down to hard work, I know plenty of people that worked to the bone, went with out and still didn't make it!

And then shits like my brother made it, by... oh yes... ripping it out of people who worked for him like me.... ;)

Oh and it cost him a marriage, a reasonable relationship with his mother, stepfather, and brothers....

:whistle:

But as you said it depends how much you want it... I do wish I could say he was happy....

geniusndisguise

27 Oct 2006, 01:36 PM

I don't think it is solely down to hard work, I know plenty of people that worked to the bone, went with out and still didn't make it!

And then shits like my brother made it, by... oh yes... ripping it out of people who worked for him like me.... ;)

Oh and it cost him a marriage, a reasonable relationship with his mother, stepfather, and brothers....

:whistle:

But as you said it depends how much you want it... I do wish I could say he was happy....

I never said it led to happiness! The American dream can lead to wealth but wealth doesn't necessarily lead to happiness.

Happiness is within the self.

Dom

27 Oct 2006, 01:51 PM

I never said it led to happiness! The American dream can lead to wealth but wealth doesn't necessarily lead to happiness.

Happiness is within the self.

Yep Happiness is within, which is why HOW you make your wealth can effect your happiness. Make it in a fashion which bothers your conscience, and you may never sleep at night again...

Assuming one has a conscience.. :devil:

RottenApple

27 Oct 2006, 01:58 PM

This is a study which was done on what makes us happy

Pleasure Paradox (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-3641.html)

It's an interesting quick read.

One of the things which the study picked up is what relativists we are.

MONEY
If you're poor, money does make a difference. But above a threshold of about $40,000 a year, more won't make you happier. Comparisons, though, influence your state of mind: No matter how much or how little you make, doing better than your neighbor will make you feel better.

dubbeltop

27 Oct 2006, 03:22 PM

The proof is in the pudding "...?.....?.......?......"

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm

Capitalism leaves out the essential (words or ingredients) no wonder it tastes so artificial......

hardkar

27 Oct 2006, 04:36 PM

Every time I read something positive written about Social Democracy in English. There is always this proclaiming that Social Democracy is capitalistic. Well every economy is capitalistic. Social Democracy means that services used by all people such as water supply and health care for instance. Is taken care about the society itself. People pay for this with money like if it was a corporation doing these things. Instead of giving the shareholders money or giving the CEO a big fat Mercedes. The benefit is invested or used to lower the rates of the service for the public. Social Democracy is not about making money in every thing. But to keep the community functional and happy. So they can walk joyfully to their work manufacturing whatever they manufacture for the internationally owned corporation.

And the proof that i works, just look at the countries which are run this way.

C.J.Woolf

27 Oct 2006, 06:22 PM

As for Ethnic homogenous for Wolf.. that isn't true for Canada or Brunei, but you said almost.. so those are exceptions.
You read me correctly. I qualify almost everything I say. :D

I know plenty of people who came here with literally nothing and now would be considered rich. No schooling, just hard work and a little luck. It's all propaganda that the American dream is dead.
(Emphasis mine.) We hear all about the lucky ones. What about the equally hard-working but unlucky ones? They're why social democracy exists.

ApeTheDog

27 Oct 2006, 07:03 PM

What do you mean by 'work' anyway? Or 'capitalistic government' for that matter...

Just the reverse of what Hustler said.

I kind of really don't want to get into this issue. There is no better system. They both work, and both have weaknesses and strengths the other don't have. And how much value you attach to those strengths and weaknesses is entirely subjective.

sbw

27 Oct 2006, 08:50 PM

sbw

27 Oct 2006, 08:52 PM

I have yet to see any proof in this thread or the linked article that social democracy works.

I know plenty of people who came here with literally nothing and now would be considered rich. No schooling, just hard work and a little luck. It's all propaganda that the American dream is dead.

thank you, guys.

Scott

Stoic

27 Oct 2006, 08:56 PM

because the only way to do it is coercion at gunpoint.

Scott

Not really. We've been moving in that direction for awhile.

Stoic

27 Oct 2006, 08:59 PM

Live very very simply, save most of your money and work hard. That's how most people do it. It's not easy. It's how bad you want it.

It's not 'how bad you want it'. Tell that to the low-IQ single mother working 3 jobs with the kids that have no health insurance.

I'd say that the hardest working people in the country (blue-collar workers) get the least in return.

Hard work doesn guarantee anything.

MacGuffin

27 Oct 2006, 09:09 PM

[Hard] work is for suckers.

meshou

27 Oct 2006, 09:12 PM

I have yet to see any proof in this thread or the linked article that social democracy works.That northern europe isn't on fire is a pretty good argument.

Rajah

27 Oct 2006, 09:15 PM

[Hard] work is for suckers.

Okay, Hustler lite... :)

Stoic

27 Oct 2006, 09:21 PM

Evidence that social democracy works:

The Economist Quality-of_life Rankings:http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

The UN's Human Development Index:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index

sbw

27 Oct 2006, 09:26 PM

[Hard] work is for suckers.

yessir

Scott

Leftfield

27 Oct 2006, 09:35 PM

So how exactly were the countries ranked? The article is useless if it doesn't provide a transparent ranking methodology.

I would rank Australia up there in happiness too - although that doesn't exactly disprove your point that the happiest countries seem to have a mixed economy with a healthy social net.

It's almost an argument for decentralization of government don't you think?

Yes Australia rocks, the people are so chilled there! It's as close to a utopia as it can get... I am also looking to relocate there... would be fun.

Hell yes, decentralization of government is something I would favor. Could you imagine if this country were more like a union instead of "one nation under God", where geographic areas are more accountable... such as New England, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, SE, South Central, West Coast, Great Plains.

All these geographic areas hold about the same mores/norms/values/etc... except backwards Utah.

Cincinnati has got to be the most depressing place, it was the only major city in Ohio that was Red, and led to the overall state maintaining its Red Status... even Michael Moore's trip to campus one week before the election had about a 90%Dem/10%Repub crowd... I wonder how many in attendence voted... our class had a hand count and about 80% voted... I was proud of something at least...

Politics: Red, Blue, Green... it's all brown shaded shit to me.

Visual example:

Leftfield

27 Oct 2006, 10:00 PM

Maybe the American dream could be just that; a dream.

But if the American dream means being super-rich, yeah that probably happens more in America, but if it just means to have a successful life and maybe moving up the economic and social ladder a few notches, then no.

I'm too individualistic to say what an ideal American Dream is...

Oldskool was a house with 2.5 kids and no divorce, plus secure jobs...

What happened?

Television created visions of ideal lives via the marketing channels and fucked everything up! Look now, I caught some commerical on Comedy Central for fucking cell phone text messaging "women" who are half-naked... such a daily necessity; it reminds me of the people in Ethiopia with the same problems of spending cash.

My guess is kids are growing up with a lack of morales in our country (and mostly all rich countries with excess disposable/discretionary income) due to such excess monies and marketing of bullshit. I saw this shit in Germany and the UK.

Fuck, that is what my current job interviews are, I marketing myself with the bullshit that comes out of my mouth.

In short, the American Dream is a jaded and abstract concept.

The New American Dream: is having two bitches with fake tits in your face with hundred dollar Benjamins hanging from their thongs holding a box of rubbers in one hand and Fried Chicken with Mashed Potatoes and Greens in the other. Living in a mansion with all up-to-date technology, including Plasma TV's in every room, including the bathroom, and even Dan Marino's fucking commerical has TV's along the staircase... with an automatic toilet paper dispenser and robotic floor vaccum with three Mexican maids trimming up the landscape. Note that all of this technology will break in three years so you have to replace all with new ones... that is how the economy works... quantitative buying, quantitative re-investment, quantitative new "innovative" products, quantitative Bullshit...

Ahh, the American Dream, brought to you in part by Chanel, L'Oreal, Dr. Christian Troy (plastic surgeon), Kentucky Fried Chicken, Trojan, Samsung, NFL Direct TV, Nintendo and the country of Mexico.

meshou

27 Oct 2006, 10:04 PM

What do you expect? The American Dream is rooted in capitalisim, invented by corportations in the first place! Of course they control it.

Leftfield

27 Oct 2006, 10:09 PM

What do you expect? The American Dream is rooted in capitalisim, invented by corportations in the first place! Of course they control it.

Hehe, yeah, I guess we found a "Hallmark" moment...

But what I am getting at is, what was it before all of this happened?

I can only back-track this to consumer commercialism / marketing / Television (incl. MTV) back to roughly the 1970/80s.

The whole respect your elders philosophy is also gone in this country as well, what happened there?

... Ummm, social democracy does work...

meshou

27 Oct 2006, 10:21 PM

I can only back-track this to consumer commercialism / marketing / Television (incl. MTV) back to roughly the 1970/80s.Around 1880, social darwinism was being distributed to Americans through churches by philantropic corporations. Basically:

1. God rewards good people.

2. If Mr Rockafeller/ Carnegie/ whoever is very, very rich, it was because he was very good, and is rewarded by God.

3. If you are good, you'll be rewarded by God. Just work hard.

4. See all those poor people around you, and don't see many rich? It's because most people are evil. You're not, though. You're special.

5. Why are you poor? Why, because your parents didn't have the opportunities to be good this marvelous modern age and/or new world provides!

6. Those unions? They want to take away your opportunity to be better than anyone else. How can you work harder and longer than anyone else if they want to make you work less than 70 hours a week, or take away your ability to risk life and limb?

It's been sold in one form or another since. But instead of "Don't ask for safe working conditions or a living wage, or God won't give you that white house with a picket fence because you didn't deserve it!" now it's "In order to be happy, you need exactly what you can't afford, and if you can't afford it, you must be a bad person, and need to work harder."

zhang_bob

27 Oct 2006, 11:26 PM

sbw

27 Oct 2006, 11:30 PM

now it's "In order to be happy, you need exactly what you can't afford, and if you can't afford it, you must be a bad person, and need to work harder."

I can't tell if you are talking about food and basic housing as the things these people need 'in order to be happy.'

people should attempt to avoid debt. they don't.

Scott

Jacque

2 Nov 2006, 12:34 AM

What do you expect? The American Dream is rooted in capitalisim, invented by corportations in the first place! Of course they control it.

Corporations are government created entities, treated like individuals, whose only purpose is pursuit of profits minus the burden of individual responsibility. Since they have "neither a soul to damn nor a body to imprison" they are unnatural members to the market, knowing neither risk nor moral obligation. I cannot enact retribution or compensation on a corporation the same way I can on an individual. The government willed it so and this they enforce at gunpoint. Property and government go hand in hand. Like in economics, everything is a commodity in politics. Power, influence, connections, identity, ethics, responsibility, and blame. They imitate each not out of respect, but in recognition that they are the same. For we think of government as one artificial entity minus the corrupt representatives we personally elect.

Cynicism aside, Thom Hartmann has some interesting ideas on the birth of the middle class, not just in the U.S., but its historical emergence. The rise of the Third Estate must coincide with the rise of the American Dream. As he says, "The real American Dream is to be middle class". He also contends that democracy was an attempt to extend political rights to the middle class and that in societies with great wealth distributions very little in the form of freedom emerged because freedom often meant equality. It did not serve to justify inequality (capitalism). But the conditions for the emergence of middle class (American Dream) has much to do with labor shortages (Black Plague), expansionism (Manifest Destiny), and the displacement of native populations (colonialism and frontier conquests) than it does with any form of divine political enlightenment (Founding Fathers and French philosophy). For ideals demand certain conditions for them to emerge.

Sorry, that was too long.

intpgolfer

2 Nov 2006, 02:07 AM

"What is a corporation? In a (somewhat inaccurate) phrase, socialism for the bourgeois?

It has the outward form of capitalism in that it preserves private ownership and private management, but with a crucial difference: as under socialism, government guarantees the flow of material goods, which under true capitalism it does not. In classical capitalism, what has been called the "night-watchman" state, government's role in the economy is simply to prevent force or fraud from disrupting the autonomous operation of the free market. The market is trusted to provide. Under corporatism, it is not, instead being systematically manipulated to deliver goods to political constituencies. This now includes basically everyone from the economic elite to ordinary consumers?"

Has America just traded socialism of the state for socialsm of the enterprise?

Are Gates and Welch just socialist leaders of socialist enterprises?

I believe yes, and it could work if government could provide competition between these socialist enterprises - and not play favorites - but these socialist enterprises, like socialists states, make a lot of money for their leaders. Who use that money to reduce competition and pay off government executives.

Thus capitalisms biggest problem - it piles great sums of money up into little piles of people [ think manuer piles - and just like manuer it stinks in piles ] unless the money is spread around [like manuer].

Socialism is one effort to spread it around - but like Gates and Welch - all socialist leaders turn into closet billionaires. When the iron curtain fell, all of the riches of the socialists leaders were embarrasing to the cause - and look at CEO pay in america - just like all socialist leaders, money piles up on their desks.

1. Capitalism is a horrible idea - greed against greed:

BUT it makes the pie bigger - it is a wealth engine for its peoples if the required competition can't be bought/turned off. The king of capitalism is the consumer - not the CEOs - not the labor leaders - not the politicians. As long as the consumer can buy any product in the world for the best price - capitalism works - action is rewarded.

2. Socialism is a wonderful idea - just like mom and dad - the state will watch out for us and we will not need to grow up and compete - ever:

BUT it destroys wealth and the pie gets smaller - it brings the best down to the level of the rest - why work 80 hours a week, or work 40 and go to college 40, when someone working only 20 hours will receive the same amount of money - as you - for each of your lifetimes.

Capitalism dies because its main engine - greed - is not checked by competition.
Socialism dies because its main engine - sharing - is not checked by competition.

So social democracies are an attempt to do both - rob from the rich and give to the poor - in other words, internal competition using mutually agreed taxation.

Proof that they did/did not work - too many people with nothing to lose?

meshou

2 Nov 2006, 03:10 AM

I can't tell if you are talking about food and basic housing as the things these people need 'in order to be happy.'

people should attempt to avoid debt. they don't.I mean consumer goods more than anything. Few people starve in America.

"A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage?" The famous promise for happiness? Cars at the time weren't near the essentials they are now. I know very, very many people who live above their means and get non-essentials because this culture equates worth with the ability to buy things.

If you can't buy the car your neighbors have, you must not be as good as them. If you can't afford the size of house you're in, you must not manage your money well. If you're 60 and fired from your janitorial position and have no other skills, and they won't hire you for yours because you're old, you must not have been smart enough to deserve to keep what you worked for years for.

It's really really fuckin hard to avoid debt. When I say I'm taking time out of school to save money for it and figure out who I am before commiting to anything, my parents were extremely disappointed in me, and thought I was putting off responsibilty. They weren't at all impressed with my subcontracting work... until I told them I could pay for two years of college plus living expenses in one year. And even then, I "work with my hands," which is less valuable than if I were just shelving books somewhere for less pay, because they assume an educated job should pay more than an uneducated one!

Anyway, I've got about two thousand dollars debt to my name, and have paid off about twice that. I've got great credit for my age. I won't be taking on any more loans for college if I can help it whatsoever. If that means I finish 3 years later, I guess that's what it means. People will still look down on me for entering my field later because it shows "lack of direction."

Living beyond your means is more respected than not, because few others choose not to.

sbw

2 Nov 2006, 02:43 PM

I mean consumer goods more than anything. Few people starve in America.

ok, thank you for the clarification.

"A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage?" The famous promise for happiness? Cars at the time weren't near the essentials they are now.

agreed...

I know very, very many people who live above their means and get non-essentials because this culture equates worth with the ability to buy things.

they are fucking dumb for adhering to that message.

If you can't buy the car your neighbors have, you must not be as good as them. If you can't afford the size of house you're in, you must not manage your money well.

people make decisions; but your above statement just describes people making stupid ones.

houses have increased drastically in size even while households have shrunk in number. the median SF-per-occupant has gone up a lot; this isnt necessary so much as convenient.

If you're 60 and fired from your janitorial position and have no other skills, and they won't hire you for yours because you're old, you must not have been smart enough to deserve to keep what you worked for years for.

or, you chose not to acquire better skills.

It's really really fuckin hard to avoid debt.

absent college, is it?

When I say I'm taking time out of school to save money for it and figure out who I am before commiting to anything, my parents were extremely disappointed in me, and thought I was putting off responsibilty. They weren't at all impressed with my subcontracting work... until I told them I could pay for two years of college plus living expenses in one year. And even then, I "work with my hands," which is less valuable than if I were just shelving books somewhere for less pay, because they assume an educated job should pay more than an uneducated one!

well it is obvious and unequivocal that your parents fundamentally misunderstand the current environment; I'm not gonna go and call your parents 'stupid' because that wouldnt be nice...but they don't know whats up, in this particular case. it seems like they make a whole lot of baseless assumptions; my parents do that too, it could just be indigenous to old people...you just gotta ignore static like that, particularly when it comes from uninformed sources. the above quote only proves that you DO understand the paradigm and are reacting accordingly.

and what does this have to do with elucidating how difficult it is to avoid debt, anyway?

Anyway, I've got about two thousand dollars debt to my name, and have paid off about twice that. I've got great credit for my age. I won't be taking on any more loans for college if I can help it whatsoever. If that means I finish 3 years later, I guess that's what it means.

well theres the whole don't go option...but ignoring that, it sounds like you've done well. 2 grand ain't shit--you will be debt free like a week after you start whatever decent-paying job you are planning on after college.

People will still look down on me for entering my field later because it shows "lack of direction."

Living beyond your means is more respected than not, because few others choose not to.

FUCK THOSE PEOPLE! those are the people going to jobs they hate every day. I'm not, so I don't care if such people don't 'respect' me, or look down on me for my lifestyle choices. and they do.

Scott