Choking On Socialism

[Burke]

Greeks are having to turn to wood burning for heat because they can no longer afford heating oil, and the consequences are dire.

http://news.yahoo.com/crisis-greeks-turn-wood-burning-075647978.html

It's interesting to see a modern civilization collapse. Progressive thought is really just "progress" in reverse, people going back to doing things the way they were done in the past and finding out why they no longer do it that way.

I recall my grandmother, who was born in 1896, telling me once that "ANYONE who wants to go back to the good old days is a FOOL."

And of course, that's exactly where we are heading.

And those who are taking us there are much worse than my grandmother realized.

[G8trGr8t]

Greek opposition leader was on CNBC yesterday morning praising Obama's policies...PS..he is a socialist

[rpmGator]

We had a major cold front freeze Florida in the 1980's. The electric grid system didn't have enough power to keep up with all the people using heat.

So the power company had rolling blackouts. Each section had to be shut down for a set time, and then turned back on and another shut off.

When they turned on the section on the west side of the Butler Chain of Lakes, it blew the system up and that side was down the rest of that night into the next day.

A buddy of mine with a newborn, had a fireplace and had to go out and find wood to keep his family warm. It did.

Even capatilists have to use wood to keep warm at times....

[Juggernautz]

Greek opposition leader was on CNBC yesterday morning praising Obama's policies...PS..he is a socialist

He can pat himself on the back for a job well done :asleep:

[ChartsandGrafs]

I recall my grandmother, who was born in 1896, telling me once that "ANYONE who wants to go back to the good old days is a FOOL."



I don't know. Do the 1950s count as the good old days? Because I wouldn't mind going back and living during that time. Malt shops on every corner, chrome on cars, and Buddy Holly songs playing on the radio doesn't sound too bad to me.

Who in their right mind wouldn't trade 2013 for 1957?

[GatorFanCF]

Who in their right mind wouldn't trade 2013 for 1957?

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=255360#ixzz2J8np2ZTl

Blacks?
Women?
USSR?
And, definitely Red Sox fans. Definitely.

[Burke]

I can get nostalgic for the '50's a little, but it doesn't take long for me to get bored with it.

[wargunfan]

The regression of Greek society has only just begun. It will be an education to watch their disintegration. But you won't find out about it in the MSM. The internet is your friend.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/735007_10152462717810515_797457784_n.png

[RealGatorFan]

I don't know. Do the 1950s count as the good old days? Because I wouldn't mind going back and living during that time. Malt shops on every corner, chrome on cars, and Buddy Holly songs playing on the radio doesn't sound too bad to me.

Who in their right mind wouldn't trade 2013 for 1957?

African Americans.

[RealGatorFan]

But we can't go back even if we could. The idea of going back ont he gold standard seems like a great idea but we are too far gone to go back. For one, we have maybe .1% gold reserves to cover our debt. We would have to cut GDP by 80% to get back to where we can cover 25% of our debts.

The cost of living doubles every 22 years. Since 1971, the cost of living has quad drupled.

[RealGatorFan]

My financial advisor told me about 2 weeks ago that in order to plan for retirement, think about being around for 40 years. Retiring with a budget of $50K/yr seems nice now, but it will be worth $12K/yr in 40 years. Sobering thought.

[AC413]

I don't know. Do the 1950s count as the good old days? Because I wouldn't mind going back and living during that time. Malt shops on every corner, chrome on cars, and Buddy Holly songs playing on the radio doesn't sound too bad to me.

Who in their right mind wouldn't trade 2013 for 1957?

Me either, buddy. Me either.... I'd go back in a heart beat

[MichiGator2002]

I don't know. Do the 1950s count as the good old days? Because I wouldn't mind going back and living during that time. Malt shops on every corner, chrome on cars, and Buddy Holly songs playing on the radio doesn't sound too bad to me.

Who in their right mind wouldn't trade 2013 for 1957?

Anyone who owned a '60s-early '70s muscle car, to be sure.

It is kind of startling to consider how much we haven't actually accompished, in terms of lifestyle altering technology and science, since that period as compared to the first half of the 20th.

[PSGator66]

We need to take a hard, serious look at Greece since we are heading staight into their direction.

[Burke]

Are African Americans really better off today? From what I can tell, Dr. Walter Williams, a black, doesn't think so. When he looks at the stats for legitimacy, jobs, and some other things he mentions, there is no comparison. He thinks that blacks were much happier and more responsible then. (same for whites, IMO)

Both whites and blacks have better technology, etc., but drugs and violence are far worse.

Is there more or less racial hatred? I would say more, a consequence of decades of Marxist class warfare practiced by leftists.

Blacks (and many others) do have more being given to them, more handouts. Personally, I think that our economy is collapsing and that the "equality" we will be seeing is equal poverty and misery.

[Burke]

Michi,

I can remember when no one I knew had a television or air conditioning. But even those advances pale in comparison to the changes that have been wrought by the Internet. It's a revolution going on right under our noses that we don't really appreciate.

I would say that most of the political changes we see happening around the world are a consequence of it. They are happening much faster because of the Internet.

Just a few years ago, people thought I was a crazy conspiracy theorist when I wrote about fractional reserve banking and that banks create the money they lend. Now almost no one does.

It's incredible, actually.

Being older, I see it better than others who are taking it for granted, I think.

This little smart phone I have is like having thousands of encyclopedias in my pocket and a lot more. I rarely use my desktop now.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Humans today are far better off than they have ever been.


1.) Humans live longer
2.) Humans have better health
3.) Humans are less violent
4.) Humans have more civil liberties
5.) Humans are wealthier

What is not to like?

Is earth a paradise? No. But life on earth is better than it has ever been. Why?

1.) More countries have self government
2.) More self government requires that business, individuals and government ALL follow the rule of law
3.) More countries are closer to market economy than a central economy, or one controlled by government.

[wgbgator]

Another dire Burke thread about the imminent collapse of something.

[VAg8r1]

Let's look how Denmark is choking under socialism
http://dareconomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/denmark-government-debt-to-gdp.png?w=600&h=253
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/denmark-unemployment-rate.png?s=deue

[GatorAbe7]

"The fact that the price of petrol has greatly increased, while incomes are shrinking to an unbearable extent, creates a vast problem with heating in Greece," said lawmaker Thomas Psyrras from the Democratic Left party — a junior partner in Greece's conservative-led coalition government. "People who live abroad imagine that we have sunshine all year round, but that's not the case."



A member of a Left Party, yet conservative led? Am I misreading this?

[wgbgator]

A member of a Left Party, yet conservative led? Am I misreading this?

No. The Greeks have elected far-left and right parties, but the Center-Right New Democarcy party is leading the ruling coalition (they have the most seats, but not enough for a ruling majority, hence the left-wing members of the coalition).

[108]

America is no shining beacon of either Socialism or Capitalism

Our form of Capitalism relies just as much on Government

And why wouldn't it when Capitalism's natural tendency is find the best way to make as much profit as possible with the least resistance

[Burke]

Capitalists rely on the govt for protection.

Socialists rely on govt for the exploitation of others.

Mainly the exploitation of capitalists.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Capitalists rely on the govt for protection.

Why would you expect capitalists to simply rely on government for protection when they can just as easily infiltrate and take control of the government, which they can then use to destroy their competitors and rule over society unhindered? Think about how easy that it is to do in our open system of government. All the capitalists have to do is cooperate with each other, buy up control of the media, finance their own candidates, and market them to the pubic through their controlled media as "men of the people" when they're really just corporate puppets.

Watch and consider:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udWXFC2sWU8

[Burke]

"Capitalists" who use the govt to gain advantages, etc., are not capitalists. They are fascists, a variety of socialists.

[gator996]

Greeks are having to turn to wood burning for heat because they can no longer afford heating oil, and the consequences are dire.

http://news.yahoo.com/crisis-greeks-turn-wood-burning-075647978.html

It's interesting to see a modern civilization collapse. Progressive thought is really just "progress" in reverse, people going back to doing things the way they were done in the past and finding out why they no longer do it that way.

I recall my grandmother, who was born in 1896, telling me once that "ANYONE who wants to go back to the good old days is a FOOL."

And of course, that's exactly where we are heading.

And those who are taking us there are much worse than my grandmother realized.


Isn't conservative philosophy based on "the good ol' days"?

[CHFG8R]

Who in their right mind wouldn't trade 2013 for 1957?

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=255360#ixzz2J8np2ZTl

Blacks?
Women?
USSR?
And, definitely Red Sox fans. Definitely.

How 'bout Gator fans? I certainly wouldn't want to wait nearly 30 years to sniff an SEC title and damn near 40 for a NC. But it would be fun to see SOS play in person.

[ChartsandGrafs]

"Capitalists" who use the govt to gain advantages, etc., are not capitalists. They are fascists, a variety of socialists.

It doesn't really matter what you call them - fascists, former capitalists, crony capitalists, Fabian socialists, monopoly capitalists, corporatist-collectivists - they used their *capital* not to just buy up control of property, resources, and companies, but government as well.

Why passively rely on government for protection when, with the right mix of money and media, you can own government and put it to work for you? The most valuable monopoly on the planet is a legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force, which people like you demand the existence of.

So is it any wonder why some people, especially a rich, vulnerable minority, would scramble to get control of it?

[108]

"Capitalists" who use the govt to gain advantages, etc., are not capitalists. They are fascists, a variety of socialists.

label them what you will, but what we have is Crony Capitalism, much to do with our legal system of bribery known as campaign finance and lobbying

capitalists have infiltrated all levels of our Government to have it work for them and not the people

and the irony is that they need the socialist aspect of Government to keep the people docile while they fleece them

get your head out of the sand :beat:

[Burke]

Somebody created the modern world, and it wasn't manual laborers and govt thugs who have been around for eons.

I'm told that Bill Gates never paid a dime to a lobbyist until he got hit with that BS antitrust suit. Now he pays millions.

The price of doing business here today is paying off (i.e. supporting with campaign contributions) politicians.

As they say in Washington, you are at the table or you are on the menu.

The "bribery" you mention is really extortion.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Let's look how Denmark is choking under socialism

Hey, one country might be temporarily successful under socialism. One small country with a non-diverse population and a economy based around some fairly simple exports Everywhere else, socialism has failed.


Hmmm....wonder why?

[mdgator05]

Hey, one country might be temporarily successful under socialism. One small country with a non-diverse population and a economy based around some fairly simple exports Everywhere else, socialism has failed.


Hmmm....wonder why?

I always wonder why the diversity of the population is the first explanation that people go to when discussing Scandinavia. Greece isn't exactly the most diverse place in the world.

So why would diversity make that form of government less attractive the a lack of diversity?

It strikes me as an inability to explain the success combined with an undercurrent of racism (well Northern European white people can handle socialism but other races can't).

[Burke]

I don't follow European politics closely, but lately I've been getting the impression that none of them are too happy with how their economies have been going.

With Google I find this, for example:

"Denmark’s economy is out of balance and in need of fine-tuning to put it back in the black again, according to the European Commission.

"On Tuesday, the EU authority released its list of 12 countries, including Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the UK, where, according to the commission’s analysts, economic meltdown could ensue if reforms are not made and budgets are not balanced."

http://cphpost.dk/business/eu-calls-denmark’s-economy-‘imbalanced’

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

So why would diversity make that form of government less attractive the a lack of diversity?


The people in a homogenous society, in race and in culture, tend to have common goals.

The success of socialism and communism depend heavily on the kind of behavior where the vast majority of people have common goals, common culture and common values.


Question, for every Dutch form of socialism, there are vast numbers of socialistic experiments that failed. Many of them failing even today.

Why do you think that has happens so often with socialism and communism?


Second point, if socialism empirically worked to create the conditions where the most humans do the best, I would sign up tomorrow. Can you show empirical evidence where it does?

[wgbgator]

How come the "homogenous society" argument only gets applied as a qualifier to the success stories? I've never seen conservatives add that caveat when saying the US is on course to be like Greece or Spain.

[CHFG8R]

I always wonder why the diversity of the population is the first explanation that people go to when discussing Scandinavia. Greece isn't exactly the most diverse place in the world.

So why would diversity make that form of government less attractive the a lack of diversity?

It strikes me as an inability to explain the success combined with an undercurrent of racism (well Northern European white people can handle socialism but other races can't).

Maybe I missed something, but how is Greece not diverse? It has been, for centuries, a crossroads of civilization, a meeting place of Europe and Asia.

[mdgator05]

The people in a homogenous society, in race and in culture, tend to have common goals.

The success of socialism and communism depend heavily on the kind of behavior where the vast majority of people have common goals, common culture and common values.


Question, for every Dutch form of socialism, there are vast numbers of socialistic experiments that failed. Many of them failing even today.

Why do you think that has happens so often with socialism and communism?


Second point, if socialism empirically worked to create the conditions where the most humans do the best, I would sign up tomorrow. Can you show empirical evidence where it does?

But people only make that point when discussing Scandinavia. Greece is fairly homogeneous racially and culturally. And yet it didn't work there. Shouldn't you have argued that since it works so well in culturally homogeneous nations, that it should have worked well there? Or is there something else going on here, but it is easier and less challenging to just think it is all about racial diversity?

I think socialism as practiced in much of Europe needs to be heavily differentiated from Communism, as they have two separate forms of governance.

Empirically, the first question you have to ask is what is success? Economic development? Happiness? Positive social statistics, such as low child mortality and high living expectancy?

Then the question becomes defining "socialist" countries. I would argue that most of Scandinavia and Western Europe display a hybrid system between capitalism and socialism. So, for example, Ericsson, the largest maker of cellular telephones and a publicly traded for-profit firm, is headquartered in Sweden, which also has one of the most robust social safety nets in the world and very evenly distributed income.

If you look at happiness, which I would argue is probably the best measure, hybrid socialist/capitalist, high involvement democratic countries do the best. Legatum Institute, which is pretty Pro-Capitalist, releases happiness rankings every year. This year, the rankings looked like this:

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Denmark
4. Australia
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
7. Finland
8. Netherlands
9. Switzerland
10. Ireland
11. Luxembourg
12. United States
13. UK
14. Germany
15. Iceland

Each of these economies are hybrid economic systems, in which government recognizes certain markets in which profit does not drive socially optimal results. Most would be considered "socialist" by American Conservatives.

[mdgator05]

Maybe I missed something, but how is Greece not diverse? It has been, for centuries, a crossroads of civilization, a meeting place of Europe and Asia.

Greece does not report racial breakdowns, but the vast majority of people are ethnically Greek (well over 90%).

All the caveats about Wikipedia (although the quote is sourced to a text book):

Minorities in Greece are small in size compared to Balkan regional standards, and the country is largely ethnically homogeneous.[1] This is mainly due to the population exchanges between Greece and neighboring Turkey (Convention of Lausanne) and Bulgaria (Treaty of Neuilly), which removed most Muslims (with the exception of the Muslims of Thrace) and those Christian Slavs who did not identify as Greeks, from Greek territory; the treaty also provided for the resettlement of ethnic Greeks from those countries, later to be followed by refugees. The 2001 census reported a population of 10,964,020 people.[2]

The main officially recognized "minority" (μειονότητα, meionótita) is the Muslim minority (μουσουλμανική μειονότητα, mousoulmanikí meionótita) in Thrace, which numbered 97,604 people or 0.95% of the total population according to the 1991 census,[3] and mainly consists of Turks, Pomaks and Roma. Other recognized minority groups are the Armenians numbering approximately 35,000,[4] and the Jews (Sephardim and Romaniotes) numbering approximately 5,500.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorities_in_Greece

[wgbgator]

Maybe I missed something, but how is Greece not diverse? It has been, for centuries, a crossroads of civilization, a meeting place of Europe and Asia.

93% of Greece is ethnically Greek, and 91% Greek Orthodox. That's really not diverse at all.

[CHFG8R]

Greece does not report racial breakdowns, but the vast majority of people are ethnically Greek (well over 90%).

All the caveats about Wikipedia (although the quote is sourced to a text book):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorities_in_Greece

Interesting. Thanks.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I've never seen conservatives add that caveat when saying the US is on course to be like Greece or Spain.

Good question. Are Greece and Spain homogeneous? In culture as well as race?

I do not know.

However, I do know this; socialism has very, very few success stories. If lack of cultural and racial homogeneity is not the right reason for it usually not working, then there are some other explanations.

The point is that it rarely seems to work

[Burke]

Socialism is a system in which productive people are forced to serve unproductive people.

Essentially, just another kind of slave society.

Where would all these supposedly successful nations be without all the innovations and advances made in capitalistic nations?

Not bragging about much, you can be sure.

[108]

Socialism is a system in which productive people are forced to serve unproductive people.

Essentially, just another kind of slave society.

Where would all these supposedly successful nations be without all the innovations and advances made in capitalistic nations?

Not bragging about much, you can be sure.


and what was the economic system with the real kind of slavery?

its hard to take your shtick seriously when you speak no ills of Capitalism

there is a balance to be met between the socialistic aspect of Government, and a Capitalistic economy...some are doing it quite well, but i'd say we have neither side right at this current time

[ChartsandGrafs]

Socialism is a system in which productive people are forced to serve unproductive people.

Essentially, just another kind of slave society.



That's sort of interesting, since you basically just described the system created by the Founding Dads. Think about it. Productive negro slaves were forced to serve wealthy, old, unproductive men on their farms and plantations. After all, if these old men weren't unproductive, they wouldn't have needed negro slaves to do their work for them and there wouldn't have been an economic need for legalized chattel slavery. The Founding Dads essentially replaced the slave society of the English Crown with their own version of a slave society, which they were in a position to derive full benefit of.

By the standard you've set here, the United States of America was founded as a socialist slave-state nation, right?

[Burke]

Actually, Charts, the slave system the Founders created was more a case of very unproductive people being forced to serve far more productive ones.

Otherwise, I've expressed my views on this here many times before.

Why don't you tell us why there would be no slavery in your anarchical society?

And what would be done about it if there were.

[Burke]

No fuel for busses in Naples, Italy.

http://wap.myfoxny.com/w/main/story/83863917/

[mdgator05]

Good question. Are Greece and Spain homogeneous? In culture as well as race?

I do not know.

However, I do know this; socialism has very, very few success stories. If lack of cultural and racial homogeneity is not the right reason for it usually not working, then there are some other explanations.

The point is that it rarely seems to work

First, we have already gone over the fact that Greece is fairly homogeneous, with over 90% of the country being listed as "Greek." The only major minority group appears to be Albanians at approximately 5% of the population.

Second, define a socialist system then. To some extent, you are relying on grouping together vastly different systems. As with most things, economic systems are not dichotomous but are closer to a spectrum, in which some markets are designed with no profit motives and others are designed with profit motives. As I pointed out, Sweden, a country with a fairly even income distribution and a substantial social safety net is also home to very large corporations with a profit motive.

The United States is also on this spectrum, as we have non-proft motivated education, transportation, and single payer health systems for elderly and the poor.

So define socialist versus non-socialist.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

First, we have already gone over the fact that Greece is fairly homogeneous, with over 90% of the country being listed as "Greek."

I'll bet 90% of the citizens in the US ar elisted a "Americans!"

Second, define a socialist system then.

Any simple google search can supply that

To some extent, you are relying on grouping together vastly different systems. As with most things, economic systems are not dichotomous but are closer to a spectrum, in which some markets are designed with no profit motives and others are designed with profit motives.

I will agree with that. That said, as government is able to exert more and more control over an economy, the more socialistic it becomes. And history tells us, then the economy in that country usually becomes less effective and less vibrant.

[wgbgator]

I'll bet 90% of the citizens in the US ar elisted a "Americans!"



Any simple google search can supply that



I will agree with that. That said, as government is able to exert more and more control over an economy, the more socialistic it becomes. And history tells us, then the economy in that country usually becomes less effective and less vibrant.

I think you need to clarify gov't "control." The Chinese gov't has much control over its capitalist economy. Increased control would only be evidence of socialism if that control put production or assets in common/public control rather than private hands.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Actually, Charts, the slave system the Founders created was more a case of very unproductive people being forced to serve far more productive ones.

Otherwise, I've expressed my views on this here many times before.

LOL, you can't be serious, man. If plantation owners were so "productive", why did they need slaves at all? If plantation owners truly were "productive", they could have easily compensated free laborers to do their work for them.

Your views don't make any logical sense.

Why don't you tell us why there would be no slavery in your anarchical society?

And what would be done about it if there were.

Under anarchy, there would be no legal mechanism or legitimate enforcement arm to protect the institution of slavery. Under anarchy (i.e., "no rulers"), men would know they are free. It would be impossible to justify slavery under anarchy, just as it would be impossible to justify rape and murder. Free men would come together in self-defense against slavers.

Under government, it's far easier to justify enslaving a population. Just look at the income tax, for example.

[CHFG8R]

LOL, you can't be serious, man. If plantation owners were so "productive", why did they need slaves at all? If plantation owners truly were "productive", they could have easily compensated free laborers to do their work for them.

Your views don't make any logical sense.



Under anarchy, there would be no legal mechanism or legitimate enforcement arm to protect the institution of slavery. Under anarchy (i.e., "no rulers"), men would know they are free. It would be impossible to justify slavery under anarchy, just as it would be impossible to justify rape and murder. Free men would come together in self-defense against slavers.

Under government, it's far easier to justify enslaving a population. Just look at the income tax, for example.

Uh, what if there are more slavers than those dedicated to the eradication of slavery? And what if they have more and better guns? There would be no legal mechanism or legitimate enforcement arm to prevent the institution of slavery either.

PS Are you really an anarchist?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Uh, what if there are more slavers than those dedicated to the eradication of slavery? And what if they have more and better guns? There would be no legal mechanism or legitimate enforcement arm to prevent the institution of slavery either.

Under that scenario you'd have government.

PS Are you really an anarchist?

Yes, why, are you a statist?

[CHFG8R]

Under that scenario you'd have government.



Yes, why, are you a statist?

No, but I believe people will always congregate in something resembling civilization, will elect leaders, follow said leaders, etc. Just human nature. What you describe, IMO, sounds a little unrealistic and ultimately, again IMO, would just lead to some feudal type system.

[ChartsandGrafs]

No, but I believe people will always congregate in something resembling civilization, will elect leaders, follow said leaders, etc. Just human nature.

Voluntarily congregating, choosing legitimate leaders, and following their guidance if competent doesn't necessarily mean you need to create a government with a legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force.

What you describe, IMO, sounds a little unrealistic and ultimately, again IMO, would just lead to some feudal type system.

The system we live under is the feudal system, you just don't realize it.