CDZ Serious question, where has socialism accually worked?

[sealybobo]

I thought of this the other day. I thought, is the semi socialism we see in many nice countries really "communism"?

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between it and nationalism. Bismarck's universal healthcare I'd say was nationalised. Britain still calls its version, the national heath.

Is a country with a government owned post offce and utilities socialism or just left over from nationalism?

I suppose the socialists take over the old national institutions.

I work with some pretty conservative Republicans from England. The one thing they don't agree with the GOP on is privatizing their healthcare. They realize nationalized healthcare works best. Some things should never be privatized.

 

[sealybobo]

In essence, the commons means everything that belongs to all of us, and the many ways we work together to use these assets to build a better society. This encompasses fresh air and clean water, public spaces and public services, the Internet and the airwaves, our legal system, scientific knowledge, biodiversity, language, artistic traditions, fashion styles, cuisines and much more. Taken together, it represents a vast inheritance bequeathed equally to every human—and one that, if used wisely, will provide for future generations.

Tragically, this wealth is being stolen in the name of economic efficiency and global competitiveness. As the disparity between the world’s richest individuals and everyone else grows, a massive takeover of the commons is occurring. Through privatization schemes, land grabs, excessive copyright and patenting claims, no-new-taxes policies, neocolonial globalization and the gutting of government services, we are losing what is rightfully ours. These radical policies inflict economic pain but also diminish the natural world, our sense of community and the ability to participate in decisions affecting our future.

But all is not lost. We still depend on and take advantage of the commons every minute of the day, from the tap water we use to brush our teeth in the morning to the fairy tales we tell our kids at bedtime. We have no choice but to redouble efforts to save the commons in its many forms, from essential public services in our communities to net neutrality to a spirit of cooperation in our everyday lives. As awareness of what belongs to all of us grows among progressives, the commons is gradually emerging as both a critique and a strategy to challenge the dominance of market-based values at every level of our society.

I think we agree more that you think. I agree our culture is under attack, and I agree that it takes a grass-roots effort to get it back. Where we disagree is on the role of Government in this "equation". I, for one, entrust "We the people" over the government.

Also, in a free and democratic Republic, such as the U.S., the people get the government they deserve. To maintain a free republic it requires a well educated and active people. The left knows this, especially the far left, and that is why many of them are, and have been for decades, so desperate to get and maintain control of education. An educated populace cannot be ruled, only governed. They are also, doing everything they can to silence any opposition.

Democrats wish everyone voted. Republicans wish only the rich voted.

 

[oldsoul]

So-called Emergency Financial Managers in Michigan are selling off public schools to private charter school corporations – and laying off hundreds of public school teachers in the process. The “mini-dictators” who – appointed by Republican Governors – have unprecedented power to fire local elected officials, break union contracts, and sell off our commons to corporate interests have decided to eat alive the public school system in West Michigan and around the Detroit area. Study after study has shown that private, charter schools don't produce any better education results, but they do pay teachers less, have higher teacher turnovers, and - making Republicans happy - are union-free.

This has only been possible because of decades of corruption and mismanagement by Liberals and other left-wingers. So, is it really the Republicans that are to blame? Have the Democrats not had near total control of Michigan and specificly Detroit for 50+ years?

Listen schmuck. When the GOP and the Rich and the Corporations conspire and send all our jobs overseas which in turn crashes the global economy, don't blame Detroit for their bankruptcy.

Keep in mind almost every single city and state in America almost went bankrupt after the Bush Great Recession. Never forget that. So maybe Detroit and maybe Greece were in the worst shape of all and they couldn't survive Bushanomics ESPECIALLY when the GOP have starved them of much needed revenue.

Social Security and Medicare didn't create the national debt but I bet you blame them for it. In fact didn't we all pay into SS and medicare? Where did our money go? Oh yea, WAR.

What is it good for absolutely nothing...unless you are Haloburton.

Your arguement is, at best intelectually dishonest. Detroit's trouble did not start during the Bush administration, people where leaving long before that.

And you need to never forget the so-called housing bubble was not started by Bush, it was started by Clinton.

As for where the SS and Medicare money went, You should ask your liberal buddies that keep insisting that the IOU's they wrote are as good as money.

Without war, the US would still be a possesion of Britain, and you would not be able to speak your mind, unless you agreed with the Queen.

 

[oldsoul]

In essence, the commons means everything that belongs to all of us, and the many ways we work together to use these assets to build a better society. This encompasses fresh air and clean water, public spaces and public services, the Internet and the airwaves, our legal system, scientific knowledge, biodiversity, language, artistic traditions, fashion styles, cuisines and much more. Taken together, it represents a vast inheritance bequeathed equally to every human—and one that, if used wisely, will provide for future generations.

Tragically, this wealth is being stolen in the name of economic efficiency and global competitiveness. As the disparity between the world’s richest individuals and everyone else grows, a massive takeover of the commons is occurring. Through privatization schemes, land grabs, excessive copyright and patenting claims, no-new-taxes policies, neocolonial globalization and the gutting of government services, we are losing what is rightfully ours. These radical policies inflict economic pain but also diminish the natural world, our sense of community and the ability to participate in decisions affecting our future.

But all is not lost. We still depend on and take advantage of the commons every minute of the day, from the tap water we use to brush our teeth in the morning to the fairy tales we tell our kids at bedtime. We have no choice but to redouble efforts to save the commons in its many forms, from essential public services in our communities to net neutrality to a spirit of cooperation in our everyday lives. As awareness of what belongs to all of us grows among progressives, the commons is gradually emerging as both a critique and a strategy to challenge the dominance of market-based values at every level of our society.

I think we agree more that you think. I agree our culture is under attack, and I agree that it takes a grass-roots effort to get it back. Where we disagree is on the role of Government in this "equation". I, for one, entrust "We the people" over the government.

Also, in a free and democratic Republic, such as the U.S., the people get the government they deserve. To maintain a free republic it requires a well educated and active people. The left knows this, especially the far left, and that is why many of them are, and have been for decades, so desperate to get and maintain control of education. An educated populace cannot be ruled, only governed. They are also, doing everything they can to silence any opposition.

Democrats wish everyone voted. Republicans wish only the rich voted.

I suppose that's why a Republican controlled congress passed the civil rights act of 1964. And why a Republican is credited with freeing the slaves.

Oh, and I almost forgot Jim Crow, supported, mostly, by Democrats...

 

[Vigilante]

Currently, these assholes are trying their damnedest!

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

technically, socialism is everything between communism and capitalism. and yes, that includes the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, we have the Best form of Socialism in the World.

Only the Right likes to complain about it because even the least wealthy may benefit.

 

[Vigilante]

Yes, we have the Best form of Socialism in the World.

Only the Right likes to complain about it because even the least wealthy may benefit.

Aw....sweet Socialism!

 

[danielpalos]

That was last millennium when even placing an engine on an aircraft correctly could take years depending on engine size and mission.

Now, the left knows to merely Use capitalism for all of its worth to promote the general welfare, as that form of Investment.

 

[sealybobo]

In essence, the commons means everything that belongs to all of us, and the many ways we work together to use these assets to build a better society. This encompasses fresh air and clean water, public spaces and public services, the Internet and the airwaves, our legal system, scientific knowledge, biodiversity, language, artistic traditions, fashion styles, cuisines and much more. Taken together, it represents a vast inheritance bequeathed equally to every human—and one that, if used wisely, will provide for future generations.

Tragically, this wealth is being stolen in the name of economic efficiency and global competitiveness. As the disparity between the world’s richest individuals and everyone else grows, a massive takeover of the commons is occurring. Through privatization schemes, land grabs, excessive copyright and patenting claims, no-new-taxes policies, neocolonial globalization and the gutting of government services, we are losing what is rightfully ours. These radical policies inflict economic pain but also diminish the natural world, our sense of community and the ability to participate in decisions affecting our future.

But all is not lost. We still depend on and take advantage of the commons every minute of the day, from the tap water we use to brush our teeth in the morning to the fairy tales we tell our kids at bedtime. We have no choice but to redouble efforts to save the commons in its many forms, from essential public services in our communities to net neutrality to a spirit of cooperation in our everyday lives. As awareness of what belongs to all of us grows among progressives, the commons is gradually emerging as both a critique and a strategy to challenge the dominance of market-based values at every level of our society.

I think we agree more that you think. I agree our culture is under attack, and I agree that it takes a grass-roots effort to get it back. Where we disagree is on the role of Government in this "equation". I, for one, entrust "We the people" over the government.

Also, in a free and democratic Republic, such as the U.S., the people get the government they deserve. To maintain a free republic it requires a well educated and active people. The left knows this, especially the far left, and that is why many of them are, and have been for decades, so desperate to get and maintain control of education. An educated populace cannot be ruled, only governed. They are also, doing everything they can to silence any opposition.

Democrats wish everyone voted. Republicans wish only the rich voted.

I suppose that's why a Republican controlled congress passed the civil rights act of 1964. And why a Republican is credited with freeing the slaves.

Oh, and I almost forgot Jim Crow, supported, mostly, by Democrats...

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. But I wonder if you even know it.

 

[westwall]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

 

[danielpalos]

Now that the left knows to merely Use capitalism for all of its worth, we are starting to realize what little actual Faith in Capitalism, the right really has.

 

[Fishlore]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

 

[westwall]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Depends on what you think is socialism....
Investing in roads, police, our children's education is away different then handing out "welfare". The difference is the reality it doesn't add back to society.


If you think the former is socialism then maybe you're against civilization.

 

[Fishlore]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

 

[westwall]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

GDP is not the whole story though is it. The overall size of a population is a huge determiner of how long socialism can work. We have 10 times as many people NOT working as exist in their entire country. Why is our homicide rate so high? Black and Hispanic gang members who have brought their third world culture with them. I find it amusing that you argue a point and have either no knowledge of the exact nature of your claim, or you choose to ignore the very real differences between the USA with its population of almost DOUBLE that of the entire continent of Europe for the most part.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Serious question, where has socialism accually [sic] worked?"

There's a huge difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism but in answer to your question, read here.

 

[dblack]

I am somewhat of a student of history, and have yet to find anywhere that socialism has accually worked. Some may argue that it is working in Europe right now. But, is it really? As I see it, there is mounting debt, runaway inflation, and government take overs of entire industries. Just to name a few of the problems facing many nations in Europe. Also, the EU seems to have lost most, if not all, of it's economic power, with the exception of the Euro still existing. So, where is it working, and providing this great utopia that it's proponants say is the result?

Impossibly vague question. How do you define socialism? Are you asking for examples of "pure" socialism? If not, how much? And how do you defined "actually worked"? Toward what end?

This is the same sort of nonsense as the threads asking for examples libertarian societies that "work". It's just distraction and rhetoric, in the guise of an appeal for evidence.

 

[Fishlore]

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

A good recent review of the pluses and minuses of the Danish system can be found in
Something Not Rotten in Denmark by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of October 19

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/opinion/something-not-rotten-in-denmark.html

Denmark is often regarded as the most socialized nation as it has the largest percent of GDP spent by the government.

When you say that socialism isn't working, I wonder what your standard is. For most socialists, the criterion is the standard of living of the poorest strata of citizens measured in relative, not absolute terms. Is that what you are using as a measure?

I too fancy myself a student of history, particularly economic history. I can't imagine what sources have given your assessment of European socialism. Where did you get these strange ideas?

Denmark benefits from having a small population and enormous wealth generated by OIL. Ever heard of Royal Dutch Shell? They make money hand over fist so are ABLE to spend money on their people that the rest of the world can only dream of.

ROTFL. Royal Dutch Shell plc, commonly known as Shell, is an Anglo–Dutch multinational oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom. Denmark isn't the Netherlands. What grade are you in? On the other hand, Budweiser Beer is now owned by a Danish company. Denmark's wealth is not based on extractive industries like oil. Denmark has more than its share of millionaires and big, international corporations. Socialism is far from incompatible with capitalism or millionaire businessmen. The difference is the responsibility of every Dane for his or her share of the Danish community. Denmark also has a King and a bunch of noble families.

Denmark owns pretty large quantities of RDS stock. They get dividends from them. That's one of many oil based income streams they enjoy from the petroleum market. Add to that they are the major manufacturer for the RDS and other North Sea oil based companies and it becomes quite plain why they are able to support their extensive welfare economy.

According to data provided by the World Bank (List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
the USA ranks 9th in GDP per capita at 54,629. Denmark ranks 17th at
44,862. Why, sensible citizens may well ask, does the USA, with a gross domestic product per capita that is almost 122% that of tiny Denmark have millions of its people living in poverty with sub-standard schools for its kids, inadequate medical care, declining wage rates, inadequate retirement plans and an upward mobility index far lower than not only Denmark but most of the countries of Europe? Why is our homicide rate many times that of Denmark? Why is our incarceration rate the highest in the world? Why are mass murders, a monthly occurrence here, almost unknown in Denmark. Why are our air and water far more polluted? ... and on and on...

Talk radio blowhards pontificate about the failure of socialism. The real question is why has American free market capitalism failed so suddenly and so dramatically?

GDP is not the whole story though is it. The overall size of a population is a huge determiner of how long socialism can work. We have 10 times as many people NOT working as exist in their entire country. Why is our homicide rate so high? Black and Hispanic gang members who have brought their third world culture with them. I find it amusing that you argue a point and have either no knowledge of the exact nature of your claim, or you choose to ignore the very real differences between the USA with its population of almost DOUBLE that of the entire continent of Europe for the most part.

Your methodology is sophomoric. Tiny Denmark and huge China have both enjoyed the benefits of socialism for many years. Of course, capitalism isn't failing in most economies either. We suffered a collapse due crooked mortgages by the biggest banks, a scam which wounded the economies of countries naive enough to trust the US government's bank regulations. The whole idea of an economic system failing is childish. That isn't the way history works. I'm glad you find all this amusing. Those who, like you, get all their ideas from right wing talk shows have real trouble finding anything to smile about.