The global standard is $1.25/day.
I don't think you have to worry about the stats being skewed by all those people that own 50 acres who are falsely claiming to be on the poverty line.
A practical example of socialism
- Thread starter wobbycarly
- Start date
The global standard is $1.25/day.
I don't think you have to worry about the stats being skewed by all those people that own 50 acres who are falsely claiming to be on the poverty line.
Its not hard, here you go.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/more-49-million-americans-even-more-thought-live-172552290.html
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/more-49-million-americans-even-more-thought-live-172552290.html
Evan, yes the real life ones are easy enough to find on either side of things.
I found some analogies but it seems on the other side of the fence people are at least as nutty as the capitalist side of it...
More of a metaphor but here is one I found:
http://www.spaceship-earth.de/Letters/Editor/The_CANCER_of_capitalism.html
I guess that is the contra point to Adam Smiths understanding that the strength of capitalism was in people following their own betterment it allows for the betterment of society collectively...
I found some analogies but it seems on the other side of the fence people are at least as nutty as the capitalist side of it...
More of a metaphor but here is one I found:
http://www.spaceship-earth.de/Letters/Editor/The_CANCER_of_capitalism.html
I guess that is the contra point to Adam Smiths understanding that the strength of capitalism was in people following their own betterment it allows for the betterment of society collectively...
re
re
I believe a society have to have a balance between socialism and capitalism.
For example, our national defence force is a great example of a socialist system. And from time to time, questions were raised regarding its overall cost efficiency. And yet, one can be sure than no one would try to turn it into a free market capitalism model, or privatize it.
I think medicare is another great example. At least, in Australia you know you would get the best care when you are sick, even if you are bankrupted or old or incapacitated. Where as a capitalistic system would ask you for your credit card first.
In a stable and advanced society, you need to have a strong, robust middle class workforce. If you got too extreme to either socialism or capitalism, then this middle class would be adversely affected.
In fact there is another socialist system that is working extremely well. Its the internet! Which is in contradiction to the model that the professor tried to frame upon. According to his logical, this forum should not have existed.
Capitalism is important, as it rewards people who works hard, in an environment where resources are limted. And cost of these resources are energy depedent. Perhaps, in the future, when we fully transform from a type 0.5 civilization to type 1 or 2 civilization. Then perhaps captalism would not be needed any more.
Warrenkh
re
I believe a society have to have a balance between socialism and capitalism.
For example, our national defence force is a great example of a socialist system. And from time to time, questions were raised regarding its overall cost efficiency. And yet, one can be sure than no one would try to turn it into a free market capitalism model, or privatize it.
I think medicare is another great example. At least, in Australia you know you would get the best care when you are sick, even if you are bankrupted or old or incapacitated. Where as a capitalistic system would ask you for your credit card first.
In a stable and advanced society, you need to have a strong, robust middle class workforce. If you got too extreme to either socialism or capitalism, then this middle class would be adversely affected.
In fact there is another socialist system that is working extremely well. Its the internet! Which is in contradiction to the model that the professor tried to frame upon. According to his logical, this forum should not have existed.
Capitalism is important, as it rewards people who works hard, in an environment where resources are limted. And cost of these resources are energy depedent. Perhaps, in the future, when we fully transform from a type 0.5 civilization to type 1 or 2 civilization. Then perhaps captalism would not be needed any more.
Warrenkh
I do not actually consider the likes of defense, infrastructure and maybe even healthcare as socialist ideas. I don't think even in a tea party members dreams a capitalist society would have people living in their own filth because no one wants to pay for the sewerage treatment plant etc.
Society has to do some things collectively and so even in capitalism taxes people and these taxes are used to pay for these communal things.
I think it is more about the level of state planning of the economy which points to whether an economy is socialist or capitalist and redistribution of wealth and incomes.
These things are a requirement in any modern society whether capitalist or socialist.
Right, and wrong. There is curvature, indeed PT. But circularity? Not necessarily.
Conceive a road called modern democracy, being an opportunity to explore the societal possibilities of political freedom without end.
Now, imagine a nation as a populist (i.e. drunk) driver, swerving now to the left (erring on the side of empowering the weak), and then now to the right (erring on the side of empowering the strong).
Communism and fascism (or more correctly, both modern variants of totalitarianism) are not themselves specifically different things to democracy, but merely modern alternative degenerations of it.
Both began as visions of splendour in answer to democracy's self-evident inability to deliver social rather than merely political solutions: But both failed by absorbing the social into the political (the very definition of totalitarianism), and extinguished the light and very life of human freedom in the process.
So many of the self-congratulating critics of communism here have no real idea of the horrors that that word truly describes. For the dozens of millions who actually died miserably under it, and it's fascist brothers' regimes, less bs and more insight really wouldn't go astray.
Last edited:
Obama's not a socialist by any reasonable definition of the term.
This sort of ******** straw man argument is the hallmark of extremists on each end of the political divide and is, largely, pointless.
This sort of ******** straw man argument is the hallmark of extremists on each end of the political divide and is, largely, pointless.
yes of course he is not socialist, but he is on the left boarder of a centre left mainstream party (ie the democrats).
This is only quoted so as to be able to simply 'box' two schools of thought into a tv dummified simplistic model that is visually acceptable to the reader.
If one wants to talk about the capitalism model, how about comparing the HK system under British rule to the Singaporean model.
Both capitalistic systems, but different in the micro management. Neither where/are any form of Facism.
Right wing does not need to mean facism. Its just that in Western countries our more right wing parties have tended to be based on facism principles, ie in Australia the One Nation party.
A boarder? Damn, they put the White House on the market, and didn't tell me!
Socialismo or muerto!!!
Viva la revolucion.....via socialismo!!
not any more the bond masters are in control now.
lol we both (together with many others on this forum) know that i cant spell. But correct spelling in and of itself is not an indication of investment/business sucesses (otherwise business/investment leaders of this world would all be people with PHD's in English, a bit like if past results could be extrapolated into the future then all the leading funds managers would be libriarians)
ah but what is the definition of crazy.
Are the future results determined by popular interpretation of crazy at a particular point in time or is it something else????
Could it be that we are moving into a different season and people have yet to come to grips with that.
What works in spring and summer might not work so well in winter and vice versa.
In my opinon Australia will have a lessor winter than some of her global counter parts, mainly because we had a hash 'winter' in the early 1990's.
Nevertheless the winter season is upon us, both from an economic and a political mindframe.
just several years ago (ie pre GFC) the conventional 'mantra' was buy and hold.
Why?
because this strategy had worked for several decades (this applied to both shares and property).
Discussions on secular vs cyclical markets was derided upon the premise that performance in recent times past (ie pre gfc) concluded the data in terms of a secular hold.
This falicy has shown its weakness in regards to shares (but yet for property).
I wrote two articles that i posted on this forum:
Strategic Investment Analysis, the first being several years ago, and the second being two years ago.
Its interesting on mybehalf, because the issues mentioned where not so mainstream, now they are (being mentioned regularly in the media, not from my articles, but the underlying thought process).
Yet with that strategic framework i have managed to prosper.
The key is now are the next developments.
Why?
because this strategy had worked for several decades (this applied to both shares and property).
Discussions on secular vs cyclical markets was derided upon the premise that performance in recent times past (ie pre gfc) concluded the data in terms of a secular hold.
This falicy has shown its weakness in regards to shares (but yet for property).
I wrote two articles that i posted on this forum:
Strategic Investment Analysis, the first being several years ago, and the second being two years ago.
Its interesting on mybehalf, because the issues mentioned where not so mainstream, now they are (being mentioned regularly in the media, not from my articles, but the underlying thought process).
Yet with that strategic framework i have managed to prosper.
The key is now are the next developments.
His talk is left, his actions are as far right as Georges. He is a Bush indisguise.
The American political centre is so far to the right, Obama and the dem policies in general couldn't by any stretch of the imagination be considered socialist. They would be to the right of centrist on a world comparison of a so called left wing party..
All he does is talk.
