Socialism or Globalization?

loosecannon

Senior Member
May 7, 2007
4,888
269
48
2010 seems to be the year that Socialism, or rather social democracy's entitlement programs proved economically untenable.

So obvious is that point that it needs little explanation. Google "PIIGS" and "liabilities shortfall" if you aren't up to speed yet.

But is this common wisdom and apparent intuitive point of fact actually a half truth? Or something less?

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.

What that model ignores is that the dominant economic paradigm of our time is Globalization, a force that will forcefully promote the migration of industry to the location of whatever workforce is least burdened by overhead like existing pension plans and esp the burden of existing social entitlement programs.

In fact the failure of state economies that feature robust entitlements is occurring exactly while industry is migrating en masse toward the workforces of the undeveloped world.

These are two tectonic economic forces squarely at odds with one another. And the failure of socialism does indeed appear to be the success of globalization.

The success of globalization is in fact the force destroying social entitlements along with the economies of developed nations across the globe.

It isn't, and can't be determined to be, one event without the other because they are both intertwined and occurring in unison. In fact they are two sides of the same event.

Capiche?
 
Last edited:
Makes sense to me.
When Wall Street buys-off the DC whores to get tax breaks to move 14,000 factories overseas, and then unemployment hits 10% and that shortfall causes the deficit and Debt to explode creating the necessity to reduce entitlements, QED.
 
2010 seems to be the year that Socialism, or rather social democracy's entitlement programs proved economically untenable.

So obvious is that point that it needs little explanation. Google "PIIGS" and "liabilities shortfall" if you aren't up to speed yet.

But is this common wisdom and apparent intuitive point of fact actually a half truth? Or something less?

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.

What that model ignores is that the dominant economic paradigm of our time is Globalization, a force that will forcefully promote the migration of industry to the location of whatever workforce is least burdened by overhead like existing pension plans and esp the burden of existing social entitlement programs.

In fact the failure of state economies that feature robust entitlements is occurring exactly while industry is migrating en masse toward the workforces of the undeveloped world.

These are two tectonic economic forces squarely at odds with one another. And the failure of socialism does indeed appear to be the success of globalization.

The success of globalization is in fact the force destroying social entitlements along with the economies of developed nations across the globe.

It isn't, and can't be determined to be, one event without the other because they are both intertwined and occurring in unison. In fact they are two sides of the same event.

Capiche?
"And remember, when the financial markets are done with Europe, they will come to test our fiscal resolve. All the indications so far are that our politicians will also struggle to get ahead of financial market pressure...

"Our leading bankers looted the state, plunged the world into deep recession, and cost us 8 million jobs. And now many of them stand by with sharpened knives and enhanced bonuses – also most willing to suggest how the salaries and jobs of others can be further cut.

"Think about the morality of that one.

"Will no one think hard about what this means for our budget and our political system until it is too late?"

Why Can’t Europe Avoid Another Crisis? Why Can’t the U.S.? The Baseline Scenario
 
In the U.S. we will have to rely on things like innovation, education, hard work, etc in order to grow and maintain a position of prominence. Developing countries are much more attractive for some industries since they have cheap, unskilled labor and a relatively large pool of undereducated workers to do those jobs. I will agree that our entitlement programs are unsustainable no matter how innovative we are in the US.

As a consumer, globalization isnt a bad thing. If I can get the same quality product for a lesser price since it was made somewhere else, why wouldnt I?
 
If I can get the same quality product for a lesser price since it was made somewhere else, why wouldnt I?

possibly because in so doing you finance the development of more offshoring and undermine our economy directly via the increased trade deficit.

The sales price isn't the actual net price you pay for any given product. The net price is realized over the life of the product on the one hand and the life of the nation on the other.
 
Last edited:
<snip>

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.


<snip>
Seems to me that these robust social programs merely beget generations of entitlement-minded people.
The number of recipients grows exponentially.
The funding can never keep up without taking from one group in order to give to another.
Forced charity.

How can any economy enjoy a continually expanding workforce with that large of an albatross around it's neck?
 
If I can get the same quality product for a lesser price since it was made somewhere else, why wouldnt I?

possibly because in so doing you finance the development of more offshoring and undermine our economy directly via the increased trade deficit.

The sales price isn't the actual net price you pay for any given product. The net price is realized over the life of the product on the one hand and the life of the nation on the other.

But if we cannot make the same quality product for the same price is that an industry that we should invest our resources in? Why not invest our resources in industries that we can compete in?
 
<snip>

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.


<snip>
Seems to me that these robust social programs merely beget generations of entitlement-minded people.
The number of recipients grows exponentially.
The funding can never keep up without taking from one group in order to give to another.
Forced charity.

How can any economy enjoy a continually expanding workforce with that large of an albatross around it's neck?

I concur. I could accept pay as you go entitlements based upon democratic support. But people who feel entitled give me the creeps.
 
If I can get the same quality product for a lesser price since it was made somewhere else, why wouldnt I?

possibly because in so doing you finance the development of more offshoring and undermine our economy directly via the increased trade deficit.

The sales price isn't the actual net price you pay for any given product. The net price is realized over the life of the product on the one hand and the life of the nation on the other.

But if we cannot make the same quality product for the same price is that an industry that we should invest our resources in? Why not invest our resources in industries that we can compete in?

name one! More on point: there are not enough of them.

The job of balancing an economy is not the job of simply supporting industries over which you can kick ass it is the job of making sure that there are enough industries in your nation to secure full employment, that your trade deficits are as low as possible, that your exports are robust.....

And most importantly that you can afford to produce the products that promote defense.

Off shoring to the cheapest bidder undermines all of that. And weakens America by the day.

We are NOT just an economy, we are a NATION!

The needs of the economy and the economic players are not at all the same as the needs of the nation.

So who do you serve? The USA or the bottom line of corporations that have no loyalty to the USA?
 
name one! More on point: there are not enough of them.

The job of balancing an economy is not the job of simply supporting industries over which you can kick ass it is the job of making sure that there are enough industries in your nation to secure full employment, that your trade deficits are as low as possible, that your exports are robust.....

And most importantly that you can afford to produce the products that promote defense.

Off shoring to the cheapest bidder undermines all of that. And weakens America by the day.

We are NOT just an economy, we are a NATION!

The needs of the economy and the economic players are not at all the same as the needs of the nation.

So who do you serve? The USA or the bottom line of corporations that have no loyalty to the USA?

So you want people to spend more to buy only american products and to have less material wealth so we can prop up american industries that cannot compete? So as Americans we should be happy to pay double what the rest of the world pays for sugar and support import quotas so a handful farmers in the U.S. dont have to compete against the rest of the world?

As far as who I serve, I serve myself, my interests, and my wallet.
 
2010 seems to be the year that Socialism, or rather social democracy's entitlement programs proved economically untenable.

So obvious is that point that it needs little explanation. Google "PIIGS" and "liabilities shortfall" if you aren't up to speed yet.

But is this common wisdom and apparent intuitive point of fact actually a half truth? Or something less?

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.

What that model ignores is that the dominant economic paradigm of our time is Globalization, a force that will forcefully promote the migration of industry to the location of whatever workforce is least burdened by overhead like existing pension plans and esp the burden of existing social entitlement programs.

In fact the failure of state economies that feature robust entitlements is occurring exactly while industry is migrating en masse toward the workforces of the undeveloped world.

These are two tectonic economic forces squarely at odds with one another. And the failure of socialism does indeed appear to be the success of globalization.

The success of globalization is in fact the force destroying social entitlements along with the economies of developed nations across the globe.

It isn't, and can't be determined to be, one event without the other because they are both intertwined and occurring in unison. In fact they are two sides of the same event.

Capiche?

It is only a state of mind, because the corporations will continue their search for more profits until they move to countrys that do not tax them and offer the cheap labor. That has no affect on small businesses rooting up in America, but here is where they are headed.

Andorra
andorra_3277_600x450.jpg



Albania
dardhe_albania_galleryfull



Antigua
anguilla.jpg



Dominca
Dominica_Caribbean_Intelligenttravel.jpg



Ecuador
ecuador_rafting_b.JPG
 
<snip>

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.


<snip>
Seems to me that these robust social programs merely beget generations of entitlement-minded people.
The number of recipients grows exponentially.
The funding can never keep up without taking from one group in order to give to another.
Forced charity.

How can any economy enjoy a continually expanding workforce with that large of an albatross around it's neck?

I concur. I could accept pay as you go entitlements based upon democratic support. But people who feel entitled give me the creeps.

LOL! So you buy into people actually feel entitled? Where are they? Why are they so quiet? Did you hide them under the rug? :eusa_angel:
 
Last edited:
The point of capitalism is surplus value -- the amount left over after expenses are paid.

high labor costs eat away at surplus value

Capital hates expensive labor.

Capital likes sweat shops.

Capital likes human-rights-abusing dictatorships where the workers are disenfranchised, desperate, and thus willing to work for the lowest possible wage.

Capital hates when pampered entitlement-fed middle classes develop along one of their supply chains. Capital thrives best in portions of the 3rd world where there is no freedom -- where workers are oppressed and create Air Jordan's for pennies. The point of the Cold War was to inflate the Soviet Threat in order to justify intervention in the 3rd world for the purpose of gaining cheap labor and resources.

Capital diverts a portion of its profits to Washington in order to make sure that social programs for the poor are discontinued in favor of socialism for the rich: subsidies, Pentagon services, and bailouts. Capital also diverts profits to the media in order to create "identity Republicans", i.e., voters who are manipulated with fear ("terrorism"), and patriotism ("America is the greatest nation in history"), and wedge issues (gay marriage). This is done to get the majority to support the interests of the few.

[Ronald Reagan was selected by business to give cheap labor to capital, that is, Reagan was selected to get rid of the expensive American middle class -- because said class was too much of a drag on profit margins. The economic horror at the end of the Bush years represents the culmination of the Reagan Revolution. The middle class has lost their houses and their jobs, and given the rate of unemployment, they no longer have the leverage to demand higher wages. They will work for almost nothing. Capital finally has the cheap labor that Reagan promised]
 
Last edited:
A Three Step US Austerity Plan

The "temporary" extension of the Bush tax cuts may be the first phase of an "emerging US variant of a general austerity strategy similar in objective but different in content to other global austerity programs."

If so, look for Phase Two to roll out in the next three months, "before the ceiling on the federal debt has to be lifted." Obama's State of the Union address seems a likely platform to announce massive spending cuts that target Social Security and Medicare in particular.

Phase Three may well follow in the summer of 2012 and take the form of fundamental "reform" of the US tax code. This would make permanent the Bush cuts for the rest of the coming decade for starters.

We could also see personal income tax brackets for the richest citizens reduced to two or three, with a top rate of no more that 28%, "representing a return to the Reagan years."

"For corporations, depreciation write-offs, a de facto investment tax credit for business, will be accelerated to full deductions in the first year&#8212;a measure already just enacted for small business this year.

"For multinational corporations, the foreign profits tax will be restructured to their advantage.

"The corporate tax rate will be significantly reduced or even phased out entirely.

"Not least, the new 2% cut in payroll taxes could also be extended, forcing yet another round of further reductions in Social Security and Medicare benefits and still higher co-pays for retirees."

This coming (Super Bowl) Sunday of February 6, 2011 marks the 100th anniversary of Ronald Wilson Reagan's birth.

Reagan's popularity with working class Americans is still being exploited by those wishing the shrink government and elevate plutocracy.

Destroying today's plutocrats may start with destroying the Gipper's corporate-friendly populism mystique.

See: The "Repo-Demo" Party's...
 
Seems to me that these robust social programs merely beget generations of entitlement-minded people.
The number of recipients grows exponentially.
The funding can never keep up without taking from one group in order to give to another.
Forced charity.

How can any economy enjoy a continually expanding workforce with that large of an albatross around it's neck?

I concur. I could accept pay as you go entitlements based upon democratic support. But people who feel entitled give me the creeps.

LOL! So you buy into people actually feel entitled? Where are they? Why are they so quiet? Did you hide them under the rug? :eusa_angel:
LOL!So you don't believe they exist?
There are a few in my own family living off of child support, unemployment, and food stamps. I don't know the last time she applied for a job.
"Why? Then I'd lose my assistance."
 
The economic power games depend on keeping most people ignorant.

Economic Wargames

Double-entry accounting is 700 years old. Why hasn't it been mandatory in the schools for decades? Consumerism is STUPID!!! The economists ignore the depreciation of all of the junk but if we buy more junk they add it to GDP.

But then they don't mention Net Domestic Product.

Professional MORONS.

When do you hear capitalists or socialists talking about mandatory accounting? It is just a dumb debate to maintain confusion. If EVERYONE knew accounting then we might all be good Capitalists. But that is not what the capitalists want. There must be dummies to rip off.
psik
 
Last edited:
name one! More on point: there are not enough of them.

The job of balancing an economy is not the job of simply supporting industries over which you can kick ass it is the job of making sure that there are enough industries in your nation to secure full employment, that your trade deficits are as low as possible, that your exports are robust.....

And most importantly that you can afford to produce the products that promote defense.

Off shoring to the cheapest bidder undermines all of that. And weakens America by the day.

We are NOT just an economy, we are a NATION!

The needs of the economy and the economic players are not at all the same as the needs of the nation.

So who do you serve? The USA or the bottom line of corporations that have no loyalty to the USA?

So you want people to spend more to buy only american products and to have less material wealth so we can prop up american industries that cannot compete? So as Americans we should be happy to pay double what the rest of the world pays for sugar and support import quotas so a handful farmers in the U.S. dont have to compete against the rest of the world?

As far as who I serve, I serve myself, my interests, and my wallet.

that's pathetic.
 
Seems to me that these robust social programs merely beget generations of entitlement-minded people.
The number of recipients grows exponentially.
The funding can never keep up without taking from one group in order to give to another.
Forced charity.

How can any economy enjoy a continually expanding workforce with that large of an albatross around it's neck?

I concur. I could accept pay as you go entitlements based upon democratic support. But people who feel entitled give me the creeps.

LOL! So you buy into people actually feel entitled? Where are they? Why are they so quiet? Did you hide them under the rug? :eusa_angel:

I meet them all the time, they are employees of the state of CA and they resist even having their workweek and pay reduced temporarily while the state struggles to balance the budget. They somehow came to believe that because the state hired them it has no right to fire them or reduce their employment even when it is broke.

They feel entitled to a job and benefits for life.
 
Socialism or Globalization?

Globalization describes a process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a global network of communication, transportation, and trade.

So Globalization is not inherently socialistic. Globalization can be accomplish by Capitalistic means.

.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top