Re: Socialism Failures
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
With Venezuela, Greece collapsing isn't it time to admit socialism doest work? Yet we have politicians in America who say we need to be more like these countries.
There's no-one who ever said you needed to be more like Greece. Plenty of successful socialist economies in Europe. All Greece proves is that incompetence and corruption screws up nations.
Re: Re: Socialism Failures
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Plenty of successful socialist economies in Europe.
I'm also curious as to where the OP draws the line between "socialist" and "capitalist", as most modern systems have components of both (including here in America). It's not an all or nothing situation.
First of all, no, I was admitting no such thing; no idea how you inferred that.
Secondly, I have no idea what your point of comparison is, but if you are saying population- tiny, resource-meagre nations are not economic powerhouses compared to a giant, resource rich one, I don't think that is any sort of comment on socialism. The US could go socialist and be as rich as ever.
I would say, though, that, for example, the Scandinavian countries have far fewer massive and immoral social issues than the US. They have their own challenges but nothing on that scale. So, as for standards of living- your poverty crisis in some areas is on a scale unheard of in western Europe.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well you are not making any sort of coherent argument, or coming across as very credible.
I was discussing the "high standards of living" compared to ours. I wasn't including people of every socioeconomic status. My argument is that the high standards of living as proclaimed in Europe, are not the same as the high standards here.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to bring to the argument here. You seem to be suggesting that the US is better because its super-rich live well? That's not a very convincing case for which system is better (though as Styletime pointed out, they are all pretty mixed anyway).
I mean, I am not even any sort of die-hard socialist, but I can't see the sense in your position, and frankly, like I say, you don't come across as credible in your judgement.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm not really sure what you are trying to bring to the argument here. You seem to be suggesting that the US is better because its super-rich live well? That's not a very convincing case for which system is better (though as Styletime pointed out, they are all pretty mixed anyway).I mean, I am not even any sort of die-hard socialist, but I can't see the sense in your position, and frankly, like I say, you don't come across as credible in your judgement.
:😖igh::
When I was in Norway, the average income was I believe $105-110k annually. What I am saying is, we get more for our money here. $105-$110k goes a longer way here than there.
Originally posted by psmith81992But that does not mean their standard of living is lower than ours?
:😖igh::When I was in Norway, the average income was I believe $105-110k annually. What I am saying is, we get more for our money here. $105-$110k goes a longer way here than there.
I'm with Ush on this one. It's hard to see what point you're trying to make. How are you comparing the standards of living? What criteria are you using? How credible/unbiased are your observations? How did you go about collecting the data? Are you comparing apples to apples?
It's hard from to get a feel for how you are applying your observations and why they are important to your statement or the topic at hand.
I don't even know what your figures mean or their provenance. Are those meant to be household/family incomes? Then you are into newjak's 'apples to apples' thing because the financial systems the two are in are completely different. Even if your assertion is true (and it's rather vague), what about the things the Norwegians don't have to pay for?
And as I mentioned before, your ignoring of 'every social-economic status' and focussing on 'high standard of living' does rather suggest you are saying the only measure is whether the well-off live well. That's a nonsensical assertion if you are trying to say 'socialism has never worked', which is precisely what you claim, because socialism's aim is not just to keep the rich happy...
... and beyond all that, you're not even making any connection with socialism anyway. Like I said, a socialist US would still be very rich; you seem to be suggesting a socialist US will suddenly see everyone's standards plummet. I don't see the link.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I was discussing the "high standards of living" compared to ours. I wasn't including people of every socioeconomic status. My argument is that the high standards of living as proclaimed in Europe, are not the same as the high standards here.
There are different ratings out there that try to quantify standards of living or quality of life, and a lot of these more socialist European countries often score higher than the US. So the "high standard of living" that you don't find comparable, is often found to be at the very least comparable if not exceeding that of the US. It's fair enough that you prefer life in the US, but your initial statement of "socialism has never worked" goes beyond personal preference.