The Rich Are Getting Richer!

[Flopper]

Well, I wouldn't call China, probably the most socialist nation on the list, a low population, low consumer-driven nation, with non-diverse local populations. Scandinavia with a population of over 50 million certainly doesn't meet your criteria either.

Well, first of all, I dealt with China earlier, the "average joe" in China doesn't have free government health care and cradle to grave entitlements, they have perhaps a bowl of rice, and make slave wages. This is after 70 years of Maoist Socialist policy. The recent economic success of China, is largely due to heavily capitalistic policies, forbidden under Mao.

There is no such country as Scandinavia, that is a region in Northern Europe, comprised of mostly Germanic people who live in isolated communities and very low consumerism. It is several countries, all with variations of Marxist and Capitalist systems, and as I said, this is where Socialism tends to work, in small groups who are not diverse.

The only thing close to a semi-successful large scale Marxist system you will find in history, was the former Soviet Union. It failed! The average person in the former Soviet Union is on par with our homeless. They have little opportunity, because they don't have the freedom that we enjoy in America.

China under Mao is an example socialism taken to the extreme. Capitalism has been good for China, but that doesn't mean China should allow the big corporations to control government as they do in the US. Just as too much Vitamin A can result in toxicity in the human body, an overdose of capitalism can be fatal.

BTW, Scandinavia is the region that includes Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, the far northern European countries in the list of the most socialist nations.

 

[Boss]

China under Mao is an example socialism taken to the extreme. Capitalism has been good for China, but that doesn't mean China should allow the big corporations to control government as they do in the US. Just as too much Vitamin A can result in toxicity in the human body, an overdose of capitalism can be fatal.

BTW, Scandinavia is the region that includes Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, the far northern European countries in the list of the most socialist nations.

Corporations don't control government in the US, that is another false perception Marxists need to portray in order for their arguments to work. It's funny, you and Rshermr vehemently deny you are Marxist Socialist, but you're spending an awful lot of time, emotively defending Marxist Socialism here.

I don't know what the "BTW" comment is about, that's exactly what I said when I corrected your erroneous statement which seemed to indicate Scandinavia was an example of a successful Socialist nation. You found several small groups of isolated non-diverse people, who have little consumerism or mobility, which is the only known situation a socialist system has ever worked well in.

I reject your analogy with Vitamin A, too much capitalism is not fatal. Pure unregulated and unbridled capitalism can leave undesirable consequence, but no one is talking about reversing anti-trust laws and laws against monopolies here. I'm only talking about keeping a free market capitalist system which has proven wildly successful at raising people from poverty, as opposed to abandoning it for Marxist Socialism, which is responsible for more death and misery than anything ever created by man.

 

[Auteur]

...Now, this free market capitalist system had some flaws, some capitalists exploited advantages and orchestrated monopolies, to become super-powerful and wealthy, but as time went by, we changed and tweaked the system to eliminate such exploitation by unbridled capitalism. The free system worked well for America through two world wars, where our ability to grow and prosper, enabled us to simply out perform our enemies on an economic level....

Sometimes I wonder if these kind of posts are a product of an odd sense of humour, or are actually concepts that are believed in.

The free market consistently went through periods of boom and bust, often wiping out the savings of workers and the middle class, and creating panics and bank runs. There was huge disparity in wealth, and horrible, Charles Dickens style slums in every large city. The culmination of this wildly unfair system was the biggest bust of all, the great depression of the '30s. This was effectively the end of capitalism as it was then known. Social democratic parties sprung up in the western world, and societies shifted sharply to the left. FDR probably prevented revolution in the US though the New Deal, priniciples savagely resisted by the mainstream "capitalists" of the day. These were principle that you would likely call Marxist.

...But after the second world war, we moved into the 1950s and 60s, with a resurgence of this Marxist philosophy, and the systemic dumbing-down of Americans, through our institutions of higher learning, and later, our secondary and elementary education systems. People simply stopped being taught about these two competing ideas, and were educated to believe that Socialists were Communists, and Communists are bad people. Of course, by the 1970s and 1980s, young people rejected the old school teachings, and opened their ears to the Socialist philosophy, like never before....

The '50s and '60s were a golden age of economic well being. Why? Because finally politicians admitted that massive government expenditure could achieve good social goals, and reshape society into something fair and fulfilling for all. It occured because of the crisis of WW2, but the effects were the same. Social programs and a progressive tax system created the middle class we recongize today, and with it the incomes to demand services and products. It is this same middle class now under assault by your favoured " captialists".

 

[Rshermr]

...Now, this free market capitalist system had some flaws, some capitalists exploited advantages and orchestrated monopolies, to become super-powerful and wealthy, but as time went by, we changed and tweaked the system to eliminate such exploitation by unbridled capitalism. The free system worked well for America through two world wars, where our ability to grow and prosper, enabled us to simply out perform our enemies on an economic level....

Sometimes I wonder if these kind of posts are a product of an odd sense of humour, or are actually concepts that are believed in.

The free market consistently went through periods of boom and bust, often wiping out the savings of workers and the middle class, and creating panics and bank runs. There was huge disparity in wealth, and horrible, Charles Dickens style slums in every large city. The culmination of this wildly unfair system was the biggest bust of all, the great depression of the '30s. This was effectively the end of capitalism as it was then known. Social democratic parties sprung up in the western world, and societies shifted sharply to the left. FDR probably prevented revolution in the US though the New Deal, priniciples savagely resisted by the mainstream "capitalists" of the day. These were principle that you would likely call Marxist.

...But after the second world war, we moved into the 1950s and 60s, with a resurgence of this Marxist philosophy, and the systemic dumbing-down of Americans, through our institutions of higher learning, and later, our secondary and elementary education systems. People simply stopped being taught about these two competing ideas, and were educated to believe that Socialists were Communists, and Communists are bad people. Of course, by the 1970s and 1980s, young people rejected the old school teachings, and opened their ears to the Socialist philosophy, like never before....

The '50s and '60s were a golden age of economic well being. Why? Because finally politicians admitted that massive government expenditure could achieve good social goals, and reshape society into something fair and fulfilling for all. It occured because of the crisis of WW2, but the effects were the same. Social programs and a progressive tax system created the middle class we recongize today, and with it the incomes to demand services and products. It is this same middle class now under assault by your favoured " captialists".

Nice write up. Clean and valid answers. But boss is a tool. Probably a paid tool. He is far from interested in truth. He is here to do as he always does: Post Dogma.
Boss, and a number of others like him on this board, have one purpose only. It is to push the far right agenda. They are NOT interested in data, or facts, and never back their dogma with links. Because they can not.

 

[Boss]

...Now, this free market capitalist system had some flaws, some capitalists exploited advantages and orchestrated monopolies, to become super-powerful and wealthy, but as time went by, we changed and tweaked the system to eliminate such exploitation by unbridled capitalism. The free system worked well for America through two world wars, where our ability to grow and prosper, enabled us to simply out perform our enemies on an economic level....

Sometimes I wonder if these kind of posts are a product of an odd sense of humour, or are actually concepts that are believed in.

The free market consistently went through periods of boom and bust, often wiping out the savings of workers and the middle class, and creating panics and bank runs. There was huge disparity in wealth, and horrible, Charles Dickens style slums in every large city. The culmination of this wildly unfair system was the biggest bust of all, the great depression of the '30s. This was effectively the end of capitalism as it was then known. Social democratic parties sprung up in the western world, and societies shifted sharply to the left. FDR probably prevented revolution in the US though the New Deal, priniciples savagely resisted by the mainstream "capitalists" of the day. These were principle that you would likely call Marxist.

Free market capitalism does go through cycles of boom, bust, and then boom again. Businesses go under and other businesses replace them and flourish. There is nothing "wildly unfair" about it, the system works on a principle of general supply and demand. What FDR introduced, was wildly Marxist Socialist, we are still burdened with his programs choking freedom and capitalism every day. As well as the Marxist Socialist policies of LBJ and now, Obama. With each, the freedoms we once knew are eroded away, and replaced with State Tyranny. We plod along and capitalism eventually manages to mitigate the damage, but it continues to stifle our freedom and ability to grow and prosper, like a noose around our necks.

Revolt? FDR was damn near not re-elected to his second term. His New Deal programs did not "save" the economy, the war did. One of the reasons the "Great Depression" is known as "great" and not just another depression, as we've always had periodically, is because of FDRs programs which damn near killed us.

...But after the second world war, we moved into the 1950s and 60s, with a resurgence of this Marxist philosophy, and the systemic dumbing-down of Americans, through our institutions of higher learning, and later, our secondary and elementary education systems. People simply stopped being taught about these two competing ideas, and were educated to believe that Socialists were Communists, and Communists are bad people. Of course, by the 1970s and 1980s, young people rejected the old school teachings, and opened their ears to the Socialist philosophy, like never before....

The '50s and '60s were a golden age of economic well being. Why? Because finally politicians admitted that massive government expenditure could achieve good social goals, and reshape society into something fair and fulfilling for all. It occured because of the crisis of WW2, but the effects were the same. Social programs and a progressive tax system created the middle class we recongize today, and with it the incomes to demand services and products. It is this same middle class now under assault by your favoured " captialists".

Social programs have never created a goddamn thing except higher taxation. The so-called "progressive tax system" has never helped the middle class, they are generally the ones to take it in the shorts with tax increases, to pay for massive Socialist reforms. Look at who Obamacare is going to zap? Not the rich people who can afford to pay for their own health care, or the poor people who are going to get freebies, but the middle class, who have watched their premiums skyrocket, if they even get to keep insurance at all. You're not a "friend" to the middle class, you are a Marxist Socialist who believes in State Authoritarianism. You people need to be drummed out of our schools and run out of our country, back to Europe, where you can tinker around with social engineering all you please, while we engage in free market capitalism and run circles around anything you come up with.... again.

 

[Boss]

Nice write up. Clean and valid answers. But boss is a tool. Probably a paid tool. He is far from interested in truth. He is here to do as he always does: Post Dogma.
Boss, and a number of others like him on this board, have one purpose only. It is to push the far right agenda. They are NOT interested in data, or facts, and never back their dogma with links. Because they can not.

Here's the thing, "Rush" ....I am not going to respond to ad homs and personal denigration. I understand this is your refuge when someone attacks your precious Marxism, because you lack any level of intellectual sophistication, and simply can't defend your own blather, but I don't have to participate.

The only "agenda" I have is to restore freedom, where you and your Marxist sympathizers have destroyed it. You're absolutely right, I am not interested in links to blogs which spout propaganda from every orifice, in order to advance Marxist Socialism and kill freedom.

 

[Flopper]

China under Mao is an example socialism taken to the extreme. Capitalism has been good for China, but that doesn't mean China should allow the big corporations to control government as they do in the US. Just as too much Vitamin A can result in toxicity in the human body, an overdose of capitalism can be fatal.

BTW, Scandinavia is the region that includes Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, the far northern European countries in the list of the most socialist nations.

Corporations don't control government in the US, that is another false perception Marxists need to portray in order for their arguments to work. It's funny, you and Rshermr vehemently deny you are Marxist Socialist, but you're spending an awful lot of time, emotively defending Marxist Socialism here.

I don't know what the "BTW" comment is about, that's exactly what I said when I corrected your erroneous statement which seemed to indicate Scandinavia was an example of a successful Socialist nation. You found several small groups of isolated non-diverse people, who have little consumerism or mobility, which is the only known situation a socialist system has ever worked well in.

I reject your analogy with Vitamin A, too much capitalism is not fatal. Pure unregulated and unbridled capitalism can leave undesirable consequence, but no one is talking about reversing anti-trust laws and laws against monopolies here. I'm only talking about keeping a free market capitalist system which has proven wildly successful at raising people from poverty, as opposed to abandoning it for Marxist Socialism, which is responsible for more death and misery than anything ever created by man.

Scandinavia has a great balance between the free market and government services. It has a diverse population of about 30 million people. There are 4 official languages plus French, English, and German. 12% of the population of Sweden and Denmark were born elsewhere. The easing of immigration laws is creating a very diverse population mix, particular in Sweden.

Looking at fiances, the three largest Scandinavian counties, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all have a higher GDP/capita than the US. Finland's is only slightly lower than the US. They all have little long term debt, rarely run a deficit and carry a Standard & Poor credit rating of AAA, higher than the US.

The 2013 Index of Economic Freedom created by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation ranks the Scandinavian countries the same as the US, mostly free. They all have greater financial, business, and investment freedom than the US.

When it comes to human services, the US falls well behind the Scandinavian countries. In education, Finland and Sweden are consistently at the top of the list of best educational systems in the world, while the US has fallen to the double digits. Quality of healthcare is among the best in the world and cost of healthcare averaged 8-9% of GDP, about half the cost in the US. Crime rates are the lowest in Europe and much better than in the US. In a list of the top 10 countries with highest quality of life, Norway comes in number 1, the US, number 4, and Sweden number 10.

BTW is short for By the way.


List of government budgets by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country
Scandinavia and the social state - Mises Wiki
World Map - Top Ten Countries with Highest Quality of Life

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Majority of rich people are rich by birth.

Got evidence to back that up?

 

[Auteur]

Free market capitalism does go through cycles of boom, bust, and then boom again. Businesses go under and other businesses replace them and flourish. There is nothing "wildly unfair" about it, the system works on a principle of general supply and demand. What FDR introduced, was wildly Marxist Socialist, we are still burdened with his programs choking freedom and capitalism every day. As well as the Marxist Socialist policies of LBJ and now, Obama. With each, the freedoms we once knew are eroded away, and replaced with State Tyranny. We plod along and capitalism eventually manages to mitigate the damage, but it continues to stifle our freedom and ability to grow and prosper, like a noose around our necks.

You have clearly never read Karl Marx, not if you think the current ( or any US administration) has acted on his philosophy. Obama has shocked even his center-left supporters in the Democratic Party by essentially caving in to the demands of Wall Street, and their fellow travellers.

What was wildly unfair was that as John Q Citizen, you could work hard, be honest, pay your bills, and have your finances and your families future wiped out by the machinations of speculators and voracious bankers. These are the very events FDR sought to prevent, not because he was a "Marxist", but because he believed in captialism, but knew that in its then form, it could not survive. His programs had nothing to do with Marxism, and certainly nothing to do with curtailment of freedom. Just the reverse. With programs like deposit insurance, for example, individuals were "free" to bank their money without fear, and not haul it out at every concerning newspaper heading. This in turn meant that the banks were "free" to have more assurance in making loans, and increasing wealth in the community.

One can, in the simplistic belief system you seem to engage in, imagine that an individual is in control of all that affects him, and so is responsible for all that does. This may have been accurate in simple agricultural societies, but it is absurd today, when the actions of policy analysts in Washington, traders on Wall Street, workers in Shanghai, Islamic Mullahs in Saudi Arabia, or any number of diverse actors all have major effects on the world economy, and hence on you. FDR was one of the first in the US (a slow learner in this regard) to recognize this, and do something about it.

Captialism, before the reforms of FDR, and later the great social movements of the '60s, was indeed wildly unfair, as it was the law of the jungle. If you were a tiger, life wasn't too bad. If you were anything smaller, tragedy could be, and often was, around the next corner. You live in a comfortable corner of the world, Mr Boss- how to you think you would like it in a jungle? My guess is you would soon be hollering for the sort of "socialist" reforms that people have fought for over the years, and have given you a better life

.

Revolt? FDR was damn near not re-elected to his second term. His New Deal programs did not "save" the economy, the war did. One of the reasons the "Great Depression" is known as "great" and not just another depression, as we've always had periodically, is because of FDRs programs which damn near killed us.

FDR fought tooth and nail against industrialists who did not want any sort of government intervention in the economy. That's why the US was still stuck in depression at the time of Pearl Harbour, while other countries that had shifted more towards an inteventionist policy were doing better. WW2 was, of course, the ultimate vindication of Kenysian policy. The niggardly and controversial attempts at social programs in the '30s gave way to no holds barred intervention. True, this came in the form of a massive military program. But the effects were the same. And it proved that the depression could have been ended much, much sooner, but for the angst of the rentier class.

Social programs have never created a goddamn thing except higher taxation. The so-called "progressive tax system" has never helped the middle class, they are generally the ones to take it in the shorts with tax increases, to pay for massive Socialist reforms. Look at who Obamacare is going to zap? Not the rich people who can afford to pay for their own health care, or the poor people who are going to get freebies, but the middle class, who have watched their premiums skyrocket, if they even get to keep insurance at all. You're not a "friend" to the middle class, you are a Marxist Socialist who believes in State Authoritarianism. You people need to be drummed out of our schools and run out of our country, back to Europe, where you can tinker around with social engineering all you please, while we engage in free market capitalism and run circles around anything you come up with.... again.

If you were to take the time to google tax regimes over the years, you would find out that the middle class was indeed doing better in the past. In the '50s, what is considered now an almost golden age in America, the top tax rate for individuals was around 90%. National debt was higher than it is today (due to the "social programs" of expenditures for WW2), but it was not a problem. Needless to day, the affluent paying their fair share took a lot of pressure off the middle class. The middle class was doing damned well, and it was because they were supported by government services, and they had the disposable income to demand various services which then created employment. This is a good way to have things.

 

[Rshermr]

Free market capitalism does go through cycles of boom, bust, and then boom again. Businesses go under and other businesses replace them and flourish. There is nothing "wildly unfair" about it, the system works on a principle of general supply and demand. What FDR introduced, was wildly Marxist Socialist, we are still burdened with his programs choking freedom and capitalism every day. As well as the Marxist Socialist policies of LBJ and now, Obama. With each, the freedoms we once knew are eroded away, and replaced with State Tyranny. We plod along and capitalism eventually manages to mitigate the damage, but it continues to stifle our freedom and ability to grow and prosper, like a noose around our necks.

You have clearly never read Karl Marx, not if you think the current ( or any US administration) has acted on his philosophy. Obama has shocked even his center-left supporters in the Democratic Party by essentially caving in to the demands of Wall Street, and their fellow travellers.

What was wildly unfair was that as John Q Citizen, you could work hard, be honest, pay your bills, and have your finances and your families future wiped out by the machinations of speculators and voracious bankers. These are the very events FDR sought to prevent, not because he was a "Marxist", but because he believed in captialism, but knew that in its then form, it could not survive. His programs had nothing to do with Marxism, and certainly nothing to do with curtailment of freedom. Just the reverse. With programs like deposit insurance, for example, individuals were "free" to bank their money without fear, and not haul it out at every concerning newspaper heading. This in turn meant that the banks were "free" to have more assurance in making loans, and increasing wealth in the community.

One can, in the simplistic belief system you seem to engage in, imagine that an individual is in control of all that affects him, and so is responsible for all that does. This may have been accurate in simple agricultural societies, but it is absurd today, when the actions of policy analysts in Washington, traders on Wall Street, workers in Shanghai, Islamic Mullahs in Saudi Arabia, or any number of diverse actors all have major effects on the world economy, and hence on you. FDR was one of the first in the US (a slow learner in this regard) to recognize this, and do something about it.

Captialism, before the reforms of FDR, and later the great social movements of the '60s, was indeed wildly unfair, as it was the law of the jungle. If you were a tiger, life wasn't too bad. If you were anything smaller, tragedy could be, and often was, around the next corner. You live in a comfortable corner of the world, Mr Boss- how to you think you would like it in a jungle? My guess is you would soon be hollering for the sort of "socialist" reforms that people have fought for over the years, and have given you a better life

.

Revolt? FDR was damn near not re-elected to his second term. His New Deal programs did not "save" the economy, the war did. One of the reasons the "Great Depression" is known as "great" and not just another depression, as we've always had periodically, is because of FDRs programs which damn near killed us.

FDR fought tooth and nail against industrialists who did not want any sort of government intervention in the economy. That's why the US was still stuck in depression at the time of Pearl Harbour, while other countries that had shifted more towards an inteventionist policy were doing better. WW2 was, of course, the ultimate vindication of Kenysian policy. The niggardly and controversial attempts at social programs in the '30s gave way to no holds barred intervention. True, this came in the form of a massive military program. But the effects were the same. And it proved that the depression could have been ended much, much sooner, but for the angst of the rentier class.

Social programs have never created a goddamn thing except higher taxation. The so-called "progressive tax system" has never helped the middle class, they are generally the ones to take it in the shorts with tax increases, to pay for massive Socialist reforms. Look at who Obamacare is going to zap? Not the rich people who can afford to pay for their own health care, or the poor people who are going to get freebies, but the middle class, who have watched their premiums skyrocket, if they even get to keep insurance at all. You're not a "friend" to the middle class, you are a Marxist Socialist who believes in State Authoritarianism. You people need to be drummed out of our schools and run out of our country, back to Europe, where you can tinker around with social engineering all you please, while we engage in free market capitalism and run circles around anything you come up with.... again.

If you were to take the time to google tax regimes over the years, you would find out that the middle class was indeed doing better in the past. In the '50s, what is considered now an almost golden age in America, the top tax rate for individuals was around 90%. National debt was higher than it is today (due to the "social programs" of expenditures for WW2), but it was not a problem. Needless to day, the affluent paying their fair share took a lot of pressure off the middle class. The middle class was doing damned well, and it was because they were supported by government services, and they had the disposable income to demand various services which then created employment. This is a good way to have things.

Uh, look out. Boss is going to call you a marxist. He thinks they are all over out there. His personal boogie man. Poor ignorant guy.

 

[Rshermr]

Nice write up. Clean and valid answers. But boss is a tool. Probably a paid tool. He is far from interested in truth. He is here to do as he always does: Post Dogma.
Boss, and a number of others like him on this board, have one purpose only. It is to push the far right agenda. They are NOT interested in data, or facts, and never back their dogma with links. Because they can not.

Here's the thing, "Rush" ....I am not going to respond to ad homs and personal denigration. I understand this is your refuge when someone attacks your precious Marxism, because you lack any level of intellectual sophistication, and simply can't defend your own blather, but I don't have to participate.

The only "agenda" I have is to restore freedom, where you and your Marxist sympathizers have destroyed it. You're absolutely right, I am not interested in links to blogs which spout propaganda from every orifice, in order to advance Marxist Socialism and kill freedom.

Great. If you are not going to respond, why are you responding.

Sorry. You are a libertarian by the statements you make. Which makes you a fool. Since there has never, ever been a libertarian economy that made it to any level of success. In fact, it is questionable that any economy ever started as one. So, anyone who supports an economic/political system that has never worked needs to be ignored. Cause it shows you are a fool. Just as stupid as those who supported the concept of communism as an economic system. Every bit as stupid.

Then there is the calling everyone a marxist. Jesus, does not come close to passing the giggle test. Does anyone take you seriously??? Jesus.

then there is the concept that your opinion is of any value. No way to prove anything. Because you are incapable of looking at data. If it is not what you want to believe, you simply call the source marxist. No way, me poor ignorant con, to ever learn anything. You just go on believing what you want to believe and spouting it as gospel. See any problem there???? Didn't think so.

 

[Rshermr]

So boss says:

Revolt? FDR was damn near not re-elected to his second term.

So, see if you can actually read the following BEFORE you call it marxist:
"The United States presidential election of 1936 was the 38th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 1936. In terms of electoral votes, it was the most lopsided presidential election in the history of the United States. In terms of the popular vote, it was the second-biggest victory for the winner since the election of 1820, which was not seriously contested.
The election took place as the Great Depression entered its eighth year. Incumbent President and Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt was still working to push the provisions of his New Deal economic policy through Congress and the courts. However, the New Deal policies he had already enacted, such as Social Security and unemployment benefits, had proven to be highly popular with most Americans. Roosevelt's Republican opponent was Governor Alf Landon of Kansas, a political moderate."
United States presidential election, 1936 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, boss, I understand a little exageration. but you are obviously either simply lying, or one of the most ignorant people on this board. Because, you see, you said FDR very nearly lost his second election. His first, as you should know, being the expert you say you are, was 1932. The second, for your education, was the normal 4 years later.
And he did not nearly loose the election. Please look at the above in red and try to learn something. I know you will not, but you could try.

 

[Boss]

China under Mao is an example socialism taken to the extreme. Capitalism has been good for China, but that doesn't mean China should allow the big corporations to control government as they do in the US. Just as too much Vitamin A can result in toxicity in the human body, an overdose of capitalism can be fatal.

BTW, Scandinavia is the region that includes Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, the far northern European countries in the list of the most socialist nations.

Corporations don't control government in the US, that is another false perception Marxists need to portray in order for their arguments to work. It's funny, you and Rshermr vehemently deny you are Marxist Socialist, but you're spending an awful lot of time, emotively defending Marxist Socialism here.

I don't know what the "BTW" comment is about, that's exactly what I said when I corrected your erroneous statement which seemed to indicate Scandinavia was an example of a successful Socialist nation. You found several small groups of isolated non-diverse people, who have little consumerism or mobility, which is the only known situation a socialist system has ever worked well in.

I reject your analogy with Vitamin A, too much capitalism is not fatal. Pure unregulated and unbridled capitalism can leave undesirable consequence, but no one is talking about reversing anti-trust laws and laws against monopolies here. I'm only talking about keeping a free market capitalist system which has proven wildly successful at raising people from poverty, as opposed to abandoning it for Marxist Socialism, which is responsible for more death and misery than anything ever created by man.

Scandinavia has a great balance between the free market and government services. It has a diverse population of about 30 million people. There are 4 official languages plus French, English, and German. 12% of the population of Sweden and Denmark were born elsewhere. The easing of immigration laws is creating a very diverse population mix, particular in Sweden.

Looking at fiances, the three largest Scandinavian counties, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all have a higher GDP/capita than the US. Finland's is only slightly lower than the US. They all have little long term debt, rarely run a deficit and carry a Standard & Poor credit rating of AAA, higher than the US.

The 2013 Index of Economic Freedom created by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation ranks the Scandinavian countries the same as the US, mostly free. They all have greater financial, business, and investment freedom than the US.

When it comes to human services, the US falls well behind the Scandinavian countries. In education, Finland and Sweden are consistently at the top of the list of best educational systems in the world, while the US has fallen to the double digits. Quality of healthcare is among the best in the world and cost of healthcare averaged 8-9% of GDP, about half the cost in the US. Crime rates are the lowest in Europe and much better than in the US. In a list of the top 10 countries with highest quality of life, Norway comes in number 1, the US, number 4, and Sweden number 10.

BTW is short for By the way.

Again, you are trying to call Scandinavia a country, and it's not. It is four countries, which speak 4 different languages and have 4 different governments. In that region, it barely ever gets above freezing, the people are not mobile, they stay inside a lot. The communities are quaint and familiar, the people know each other and trust each other. They are not diverse in any sense of the word, most people in that region are Germanic people, and always have been. They don't have 20 million illegals streaming across their borders.

As I said, in SMALL ISOLATED COMMUNES... COMMUNism works, it's the only way it has ever worked, and I'm sure they have greater EVERYTHING than the US, because small, tight-knit groups can utilize socialism to their advantage. We can't do that here because we are a nation of 350 million people, of all walks of life, no one knows or trusts each other, we are consumer driven and mobile, on the go. We have millions of illegal immigrants flooding our emergency rooms and schools, that a socialist system simply can't afford...HELL, a Capitalist system can't even afford it!

Your head has been pumped full of bullshit, and you THINK these socialist examples are the "model of the future" but you are dead wrong. What you are pushing us to, is what the former Soviet Union had under Stalin, which ended in the deaths of 50 million people. When you start witnessing them filling up the ditches with corpses, is not the time to say... "Well, I thought it would work, my bad!" NOW, is the time to pull your head out of your ass and realize you are throwing away the ONLY THING that can save this country. Free market American capitalism is the answer here, nothing else is going to work better, because nothing else ever has worked better.

 

[Boss]

Great. If you are not going to respond, why are you responding.

Sorry. You are a libertarian by the statements you make. Which makes you a fool. Since there has never, ever been a libertarian economy that made it to any level of success. In fact, it is questionable that any economy ever started as one. So, anyone who supports an economic/political system that has never worked needs to be ignored. Cause it shows you are a fool. Just as stupid as those who supported the concept of communism as an economic system. Every bit as stupid.

Then there is the calling everyone a marxist. Jesus, does not come close to passing the giggle test. Does anyone take you seriously??? Jesus.

then there is the concept that your opinion is of any value. No way to prove anything. Because you are incapable of looking at data. If it is not what you want to believe, you simply call the source marxist. No way, me poor ignorant con, to ever learn anything. You just go on believing what you want to believe and spouting it as gospel. See any problem there???? Didn't think so.

No, I am not a libertarian, although I do hold several quite libertarian viewpoints. I am a conservative, and I make no bones about that. I don't know what the **** you are talking about with this "libertarian economy" nonsense, we have an American economy, it depends on supply and demand and free market capitalism.

And let's clarify, I haven't called anyone a Marxist, you advocate Marxist policies. You're probably too ******* dumb to know you're a Marxist, I don't doubt that one bit. Those who are espousing Marxist philosophy, sure as hell aren't calling it that, they've created all kinds of new names for it, and put all kinds of spin on what it is, but the bottom line remains, it follows the concepts of Karl Marx, which means it is Marxism.

 

[Boss]

So boss says:

Revolt? FDR was damn near not re-elected to his second term.

So, see if you can actually read the following BEFORE you call it marxist:
"The United States presidential election of 1936 was the 38th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 1936. In terms of electoral votes, it was the most lopsided presidential election in the history of the United States. In terms of the popular vote, it was the second-biggest victory for the winner since the election of 1820, which was not seriously contested.
The election took place as the Great Depression entered its eighth year. Incumbent President and Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt was still working to push the provisions of his New Deal economic policy through Congress and the courts. However, the New Deal policies he had already enacted, such as Social Security and unemployment benefits, had proven to be highly popular with most Americans. Roosevelt's Republican opponent was Governor Alf Landon of Kansas, a political moderate."
United States presidential election, 1936 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, boss, I understand a little exageration. but you are obviously either simply lying, or one of the most ignorant people on this board. Because, you see, you said FDR very nearly lost his second election. His first, as you should know, being the expert you say you are, was 1932. The second, for your education, was the normal 4 years later.
And he did not nearly loose the election. Please look at the above in red and try to learn something. I know you will not, but you could try.

Yeah, try jumping to the 1940 election, when the Great Depression was entering it's 12th year, and his 2nd term policies had not worked. He nearly lost. In fact, much of his 3rd and 4th term, he was forced to 'revamp' his plan, because it was such a dismal failure. It wasn't until WWII, when every able-body man was shipped overseas, and the women were left to man the factories, that we began to recover from the Great Depression.

 

[Flopper]

Corporations don't control government in the US, that is another false perception Marxists need to portray in order for their arguments to work. It's funny, you and Rshermr vehemently deny you are Marxist Socialist, but you're spending an awful lot of time, emotively defending Marxist Socialism here.

I don't know what the "BTW" comment is about, that's exactly what I said when I corrected your erroneous statement which seemed to indicate Scandinavia was an example of a successful Socialist nation. You found several small groups of isolated non-diverse people, who have little consumerism or mobility, which is the only known situation a socialist system has ever worked well in.

I reject your analogy with Vitamin A, too much capitalism is not fatal. Pure unregulated and unbridled capitalism can leave undesirable consequence, but no one is talking about reversing anti-trust laws and laws against monopolies here. I'm only talking about keeping a free market capitalist system which has proven wildly successful at raising people from poverty, as opposed to abandoning it for Marxist Socialism, which is responsible for more death and misery than anything ever created by man.

Scandinavia has a great balance between the free market and government services. It has a diverse population of about 30 million people. There are 4 official languages plus French, English, and German. 12% of the population of Sweden and Denmark were born elsewhere. The easing of immigration laws is creating a very diverse population mix, particular in Sweden.

Looking at fiances, the three largest Scandinavian counties, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all have a higher GDP/capita than the US. Finland's is only slightly lower than the US. They all have little long term debt, rarely run a deficit and carry a Standard & Poor credit rating of AAA, higher than the US.

The 2013 Index of Economic Freedom created by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation ranks the Scandinavian countries the same as the US, mostly free. They all have greater financial, business, and investment freedom than the US.

When it comes to human services, the US falls well behind the Scandinavian countries. In education, Finland and Sweden are consistently at the top of the list of best educational systems in the world, while the US has fallen to the double digits. Quality of healthcare is among the best in the world and cost of healthcare averaged 8-9% of GDP, about half the cost in the US. Crime rates are the lowest in Europe and much better than in the US. In a list of the top 10 countries with highest quality of life, Norway comes in number 1, the US, number 4, and Sweden number 10.

BTW is short for By the way.

Again, you are trying to call Scandinavia a country, and it's not. It is four countries, which speak 4 different languages and have 4 different governments. In that region, it barely ever gets above freezing, the people are not mobile, they stay inside a lot. The communities are quaint and familiar, the people know each other and trust each other. They are not diverse in any sense of the word, most people in that region are Germanic people, and always have been. They don't have 20 million illegals streaming across their borders.

As I said, in SMALL ISOLATED COMMUNES... COMMUNism works, it's the only way it has ever worked, and I'm sure they have greater EVERYTHING than the US, because small, tight-knit groups can utilize socialism to their advantage. We can't do that here because we are a nation of 350 million people, of all walks of life, no one knows or trusts each other, we are consumer driven and mobile, on the go. We have millions of illegal immigrants flooding our emergency rooms and schools, that a socialist system simply can't afford...HELL, a Capitalist system can't even afford it!

Your head has been pumped full of bullshit, and you THINK these socialist examples are the "model of the future" but you are dead wrong. What you are pushing us to, is what the former Soviet Union had under Stalin, which ended in the deaths of 50 million people. When you start witnessing them filling up the ditches with corpses, is not the time to say... "Well, I thought it would work, my bad!" NOW, is the time to pull your head out of your ass and realize you are throwing away the ONLY THING that can save this country. Free market American capitalism is the answer here, nothing else is going to work better, because nothing else ever has worked better.

Again, you are trying to call Scandinavia a country, and it's not. It is four countries, which speak 4 different languages and have 4 different governments.

No. I never said Scandinavia was a country. From my first post, I said, "Scandinavia is the region that includes Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, the far northern European countries in the list of the most socialist nations." How about reading my posts before you dispute them?

In that region, it barely ever gets above freezing, the people are not mobile, they stay inside a lot.

Sorry, wrong again. In Sweden in the summer, the average temperature in the Northern areas are somewhere between 46 °F and 61 °F, while further South it is usually 55 °F to 72 °F. In Denmark temperatures are slightly warmer and are about the same in Norway. Scandinavians are know worldwide for their outdoor activities. The average Swed has traveled to far more countries than the average American.
Climate of the Nordic countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, in SMALL ISOLATED COMMUNES.

You think the Scandinavia countries are composed of just small isolated communities? The major cities have populations over half million people.

They don't have 20 million illegals streaming across their borders.

No and we don't either. The highest estimates are less than a tenth of your figure.

I don't have the time or the inclination to correct all your errors. Please do a little research before posting.

 

[Boss]

I don't have the time or the inclination to correct all your errors. Please do a little research before posting.

No, you only have time to be a little Socialist twithead, apparently. I'm trying to make the point to you, that countries isolated in Northern Europe, are NOT comparable to the US. Either you get that point, or you have to be an obtuse prick. It is clear which you have chosen.

No. I never said Scandinavia was a country.

But you want to combine statistics of 4 countries and compare with our country. To show "diversity" you say the Scandinavians speak 4 different languages, well... they are 4 different countries! DUH! To relate to size, you want to say Scandinavians have 50 million people, but again... this is 4 countries combined. I say it RARELY gets above freezing and they don't get outside much, and you counter with the average summer temperatures and how they are "famous" for their outdoor sports... what? Snow skiing and bobsledding? Curling? Luge? The people live a totally different lifestyle, and from a socioeconomic perspective, are all relatively the same. They don't have a lot of ethnic diversity or wealth disparity...now this is where your obtuse ass has to conjure up a ******* unicorn of an example to 'prove me wrong', but the point is made. Their lifestyle and circumstances are so much different than ours, and different from any sizable country anywhere else in the world.

Look, I have said that Socialism works in small isolated like-minded groups who share common interest. This is true anywhere in the world, including the US. You may belong to a Homeowners Association, and you may all agree to pay a certain amount each, to cover the cost of the community swimming pool... that's fine, you share a common interest, you are all going to use the pool, so this makes sense. But if every time you went to the pool to enjoy it, there were all these outside people there, who didn't help pay for it, you'd be pissed. That's why Socialism doesn't work in a diverse and mobile society. We don't have a nationwide Homeowners Association, because our interests may be vastly different from one area to another. The concept only works on a local level, with like-minded individuals who share common interest, and have relatively the same wealth status. The same applies to Socialism.

So back to the point, you need to find a country of somewhere close to 350 million, with another 20 million illegal aliens, where Socialist policies have been successful and prosperous for the people. That's a problem because none exist. We can find plenty of examples where such a thing has been attempted, and ended in horrific demise, but there are no success stories. Compare this with liberty and freedom of a free market capitalist society, and we see a nation born just 240 years ago, become the greatest superpower ever known to mankind.

 

[Rshermr]

So boss says:

Revolt? FDR was damn near not re-elected to his second term.

So, see if you can actually read the following BEFORE you call it marxist:
"The United States presidential election of 1936 was the 38th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 1936. In terms of electoral votes, it was the most lopsided presidential election in the history of the United States. In terms of the popular vote, it was the second-biggest victory for the winner since the election of 1820, which was not seriously contested.
The election took place as the Great Depression entered its eighth year. Incumbent President and Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt was still working to push the provisions of his New Deal economic policy through Congress and the courts. However, the New Deal policies he had already enacted, such as Social Security and unemployment benefits, had proven to be highly popular with most Americans. Roosevelt's Republican opponent was Governor Alf Landon of Kansas, a political moderate."
United States presidential election, 1936 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, boss, I understand a little exageration. but you are obviously either simply lying, or one of the most ignorant people on this board. Because, you see, you said FDR very nearly lost his second election. His first, as you should know, being the expert you say you are, was 1932. The second, for your education, was the normal 4 years later.
And he did not nearly loose the election. Please look at the above in red and try to learn something. I know you will not, but you could try.

Yeah, try jumping to the 1940 election, when the Great Depression was entering it's 12th year, and his 2nd term policies had not worked. He nearly lost. In fact, much of his 3rd and 4th term, he was forced to 'revamp' his plan, because it was such a dismal failure. It wasn't until WWII, when every able-body man was shipped overseas, and the women were left to man the factories, that we began to recover from the Great Depression.

Uh, me boy. Must have some issues with the reality world. So, you were completely wrong about the election you said he nearly lost in 1936. A totally bs statement by you. So, should we believe anything else?? You were rewriting history in that post, and you are doing so again in this one. Truth seems to be of no interest to you, me lying con tool. You simply dismiss your statement about fdr's second election and try to move the subject to the later part of his term. No admission that you were wrong. And not a little wrong. COMPLETELY wrong.
Lets see. What was unemployment by the time fdr took office in March of '33? Over 24%, me ignorant con. From about 3.2% in 1929, So, you blame fdr??? The ue rate was going up like a rocket when fdr took office. To 24.9% in '33, though just starting to come down. To 24% the next year, and to 14% by 1937. And continued down, except for one year when he followed the repubs demands and stopped spending in '37, then back down. The result was an upturn in the ue rate in '38, accompanied by heavy stimulative spending by the end of that year, and the rate dropping again by the next year. By the time the US entered the war at the very end of '41 (we entered the war, as all know except perhaps you, after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Dec '41 from an action standpoint), the ue rate was under 10%. And the repubs were screaming, but the people were not. Because, you see, the ue rate was getting better, and better, and better, except when the gov followed policies that politicians who held views like yours got their way.
The Great Depression Statistics
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

So you lied about the '36 election. How about this statement you made:\

Yeah, try jumping to the 1940 election, when the Great Depression was entering it's 12th year, and his 2nd term policies had not worked.

Lets do that. Lets check and see if you lied again. Why, what a surprise!!! Another huge win for FDR. FDR won with 449 electoral votes to the repub's 82 electoral votes. What a surprise. You lied again. No integrity at all in you, is there boss. None at all.
http://www.270towin.com/1940_Election/

Relative to what you are from a political/economic standpoint, you are a liar. So no one will ever know when you suggest what you are. You express libertarian views. Plain and simple.
Relative to me being a marxist, that would be another bit of bullshit from your mouth. I never, ever believed in the marxist view. Ever. And as I have said here, in this thread more than once, I believe that communism never had a chance of succeeding, and never will.


But neither am I a laissez faire capitalist. Because that is essentially the same as being a libertarian, in that neither will ever work. And that economic view has been rejected by the people of this country for good reason. And because it has not worked in any other country of the world, and has been rejected in those countries. And because it can not work, never will. Only con tools, who support a very few who would like to get very, very rich on the back of the working people of the country, support the view you push. You are a con tool. And I suspect you are a paid con tool.

 

[Flopper]

I don't have the time or the inclination to correct all your errors. Please do a little research before posting.

No, you only have time to be a little Socialist twithead, apparently. I'm trying to make the point to you, that countries isolated in Northern Europe, are NOT comparable to the US. Either you get that point, or you have to be an obtuse prick. It is clear which you have chosen.

No. I never said Scandinavia was a country.

But you want to combine statistics of 4 countries and compare with our country. To show "diversity" you say the Scandinavians speak 4 different languages, well... they are 4 different countries! DUH! To relate to size, you want to say Scandinavians have 50 million people, but again... this is 4 countries combined. I say it RARELY gets above freezing and they don't get outside much, and you counter with the average summer temperatures and how they are "famous" for their outdoor sports... what? Snow skiing and bobsledding? Curling? Luge? The people live a totally different lifestyle, and from a socioeconomic perspective, are all relatively the same. They don't have a lot of ethnic diversity or wealth disparity...now this is where your obtuse ass has to conjure up a ******* unicorn of an example to 'prove me wrong', but the point is made. Their lifestyle and circumstances are so much different than ours, and different from any sizable country anywhere else in the world.

Look, I have said that Socialism works in small isolated like-minded groups who share common interest. This is true anywhere in the world, including the US. You may belong to a Homeowners Association, and you may all agree to pay a certain amount each, to cover the cost of the community swimming pool... that's fine, you share a common interest, you are all going to use the pool, so this makes sense. But if every time you went to the pool to enjoy it, there were all these outside people there, who didn't help pay for it, you'd be pissed. That's why Socialism doesn't work in a diverse and mobile society. We don't have a nationwide Homeowners Association, because our interests may be vastly different from one area to another. The concept only works on a local level, with like-minded individuals who share common interest, and have relatively the same wealth status. The same applies to Socialism.

So back to the point, you need to find a country of somewhere close to 350 million, with another 20 million illegal aliens, where Socialist policies have been successful and prosperous for the people. That's a problem because none exist. We can find plenty of examples where such a thing has been attempted, and ended in horrific demise, but there are no success stories. Compare this with liberty and freedom of a free market capitalist society, and we see a nation born just 240 years ago, become the greatest superpower ever known to mankind.

You think Stockholm with a population of 1.4 million people is a "small isolated like-minded group lacking in diversity". That's ridiculous. In Sweden, 12% of people that live there were born elsewhere In the US it's 10.5%. Sweden has an open door immigration policy that has created so much diversity that it threatens the national culture.

Denmark has an immigration rate over the last 10 years of 22% over 5 times greater than the US and you think they are a small isolated like-minded group?

The foundation of your argument is bogus.

 

[Rshermr]

I don't have the time or the inclination to correct all your errors. Please do a little research before posting.

No, you only have time to be a little Socialist twithead, apparently. I'm trying to make the point to you, that countries isolated in Northern Europe, are NOT comparable to the US. Either you get that point, or you have to be an obtuse prick. It is clear which you have chosen.

No. I never said Scandinavia was a country.

But you want to combine statistics of 4 countries and compare with our country. To show "diversity" you say the Scandinavians speak 4 different languages, well... they are 4 different countries! DUH! To relate to size, you want to say Scandinavians have 50 million people, but again... this is 4 countries combined. I say it RARELY gets above freezing and they don't get outside much, and you counter with the average summer temperatures and how they are "famous" for their outdoor sports... what? Snow skiing and bobsledding? Curling? Luge? The people live a totally different lifestyle, and from a socioeconomic perspective, are all relatively the same. They don't have a lot of ethnic diversity or wealth disparity...now this is where your obtuse ass has to conjure up a ******* unicorn of an example to 'prove me wrong', but the point is made. Their lifestyle and circumstances are so much different than ours, and different from any sizable country anywhere else in the world.

Look, I have said that Socialism works in small isolated like-minded groups who share common interest. This is true anywhere in the world, including the US. You may belong to a Homeowners Association, and you may all agree to pay a certain amount each, to cover the cost of the community swimming pool... that's fine, you share a common interest, you are all going to use the pool, so this makes sense. But if every time you went to the pool to enjoy it, there were all these outside people there, who didn't help pay for it, you'd be pissed. That's why Socialism doesn't work in a diverse and mobile society. We don't have a nationwide Homeowners Association, because our interests may be vastly different from one area to another. The concept only works on a local level, with like-minded individuals who share common interest, and have relatively the same wealth status. The same applies to Socialism.

So back to the point, you need to find a country of somewhere close to 350 million, with another 20 million illegal aliens, where Socialist policies have been successful and prosperous for the people. That's a problem because none exist. We can find plenty of examples where such a thing has been attempted, and ended in horrific demise, but there are no success stories. Compare this with liberty and freedom of a free market capitalist society, and we see a nation born just 240 years ago, become the greatest superpower ever known to mankind.

You think Stockholm with a population of 1.4 million people is a "small isolated like-minded group lacking in diversity". That's ridiculous. In Sweden, 12% of people that live there were born elsewhere In the US it's 10.5%. Sweden has an open door immigration policy that has created so much diversity that it threatens the national culture.

Denmark has an immigration rate over the last 10 years of 22% over 5 times greater than the US and you think they are a small isolated like-minded group?

The foundation of your argument is bogus.

Kind of amazing that someone can make the kind of claims that boss does. And just believe that people should swallow them. You can prove that he is wrong over and over, but he just keeps on making the statements. At any rate, nice job of proving his statements to be untrue.