Socialism only works for one generation and then it comes to a cliff.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 5:31 PM GMT
    As it turns out the European paragons of socialism are all bankrupt. It was a clever scam to use a government to fund an unsustainable life style and then move the debt to the next generation. Our financial cliff is the same story . Bill Clinton says our financial ills started 30 years ago when financial accountability was dialed out of the political mind.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 5:47 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidAs it turns out the European paragons of socialism are all bankrupt. It was a clever scam to use a government to fund an unsustainable life style and then move the debt to the next generation. Our financial cliff is the same story . Bill Clinton says our financial ills started 30 years ago when financial accountability was dialed out of the political mind.

    The impending "financial cliff" is not about socialism, it's about whether we want to extend the Bush tax cuts or not and for whom. Sheesh.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Nov 14, 2012 6:10 PM GMT
    Several useless wars didn't contribute to our financial problems?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 6:29 PM GMT
    It's been a long time since we had a non-useless war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 6:36 PM GMT
    The corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today. Consumers create jobs, not corporations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 6:40 PM GMT
    Caslon21000 saidThe corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today.


    How have they done this? How would you propose that this problem be solved?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 6:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 saidThe corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today.


    How have they done this? How would you propose that this problem be solved?

    The executives have taken exorbitant raises, benefits, and severance packages, instead of giving better raises to the workers. The solution is sharing the corporate profits better with the workers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 6:56 PM GMT
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 saidThe corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today.


    How have they done this? How would you propose that this problem be solved?

    The executives have taken exorbitant raises, benefits, and severance packages, instead of giving better raises to the workers. The solution is sharing the corporate profits better with the workers.


    Do you believe this would be the outcome of significantly more taxes? As for higher raises, benefits and severance packages, was this different in the 30 years previous? What changed?.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:05 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidAs it turns out the European paragons of socialism are all bankrupt. It was a clever scam to use a government to fund an unsustainable life style and then move the debt to the next generation. Our financial cliff is the same story . Bill Clinton says our financial ills started 30 years ago when financial accountability was dialed out of the political mind.


    Yes as proven by Sweden, Denmark, Norway and all those other northern European socialist hellholes on the verge of financial collapse... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:15 PM GMT
    sctsm said
    Alpha13 saidAs it turns out the European paragons of socialism are all bankrupt. It was a clever scam to use a government to fund an unsustainable life style and then move the debt to the next generation. Our financial cliff is the same story . Bill Clinton says our financial ills started 30 years ago when financial accountability was dialed out of the political mind.


    Yes as proven by Sweden, Denmark, Norway and all those other northern European socialist hellholes on the verge of financial collapse... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Er, be careful what you wish for - the economic histories of these countries are far from clearcut - they started out wealthy but have also undergone considerable structural reforms (read: deregulation, and privatization) to get to where they are -
    http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/Swedish-economic-history/Structural-Problems-and-Reforms/

    It has also helped that they are relatively small countries population wise. And then there's this - a study, granted about 10 years ago pointing out that the average Swede was poorer than the average black American - the poorest socioeconomic group in the US.

    http://mises.org/daily/955
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:19 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 saidThe corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today.


    How have they done this? How would you propose that this problem be solved?

    The executives have taken exorbitant raises, benefits, and severance packages, instead of giving better raises to the workers. The solution is sharing the corporate profits better with the workers.


    Do you believe this would be the outcome of significantly more taxes? As for higher raises, benefits and severance packages, was this different in the 30 years previous? What changed?.

    What changed was the greed of the execs. I remember being told "you're lucky you got a job." Only in the '90s was the situation changed. Under Clinton, there were more jobs than workers. The execs HATED that. We could leave a job and instantly have another job equal or better. So after Clinton, they made sure that was shut down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:23 PM GMT
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 saidThe corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today.


    How have they done this? How would you propose that this problem be solved?

    The executives have taken exorbitant raises, benefits, and severance packages, instead of giving better raises to the workers. The solution is sharing the corporate profits better with the workers.


    Do you believe this would be the outcome of significantly more taxes? As for higher raises, benefits and severance packages, was this different in the 30 years previous? What changed?.

    What changed was the greed of the execs. I remember being told "you're lucky you got a job." Only in the '90s was the situation changed. Under Clinton, there wereore jobs than workers. The execs HATED that. We could leave a job and instantly have another job equal or better. So after Clinton, they made sure that was shut down.


    This suggests that execs acted as a group though - or that there was a policy shift as a result of animus against Clinton? But I'm still unclear what you think the trigger is/mechanism that allowed for this - and what you think the appropriate solution is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    sctsm said
    Alpha13 saidAs it turns out the European paragons of socialism are all bankrupt. It was a clever scam to use a government to fund an unsustainable life style and then move the debt to the next generation. Our financial cliff is the same story . Bill Clinton says our financial ills started 30 years ago when financial accountability was dialed out of the political mind.


    Yes as proven by Sweden, Denmark, Norway and all those other northern European socialist hellholes on the verge of financial collapse... icon_rolleyes.gif


    Er, be careful what you wish for - the economic histories of these countries are far from clearcut - they started out wealthy but have also undergone considerable structural reforms (read: deregulation, and privatization) to get to where they are -
    http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/Swedish-economic-history/Structural-Problems-and-Reforms/

    It has also helped that they are relatively small countries population wise. And then there's this - a study, granted about 10 years ago pointing out that the average Swede was poorer than the average black American - the poorest socioeconomic group in the US.

    http://mises.org/daily/955


    Uh, this is actually my point... from a purely american conservative standpoint these countries are extremely "socialist." However, upon actual inspection, you see how they have found ways to maintain both economic competitiveness and extremely strong social safety nets and still have low levels of debt.

    If someone is going to bring up European socialism as a cautionary tale, they can't just ignore the countries that don't fit their spin...

    A comparison of income is meaningless without normalization for standard of living... Does it matter if Swedes make less, if they don't have the same basic expenses (healthcare, child care, etc)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:33 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]sfbayguy said[/cite]
    Alpha13 saidAs it turns out the European paragons of socialism are all bankrupt. It was a clever scam to use a government to fund an unsustainable life style and then move the debt to the next generation. Our financial cliff is the same story . Bill Clinton says our financial ills started 30 years ago when financial accountability was dialed out of the political mind.

    The impending "financial cliff" is not about socialism, it's about whether we want to extend the Bush tax cuts or not and for whom. Sheesh.[/

    Cuts are stupid. No one likes being cut. The point is that government programs have never really been funded. Money was borrowed from future generations to support yesterday's lifestyle. The cliff is about stopping this practice or just keep going more in debt.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:34 PM GMT
    sctsm saidUh, this is actually my point... from a purely american conservative standpoint these countries are extremely "socialist." However, upon actual inspection, you see how they have found ways to maintain both economic competitiveness and extremely strong social safety nets and still have low levels of debt.

    If someone is going to bring up European socialism as a cautionary tale, they can't just ignore the countries that don't fit their spin...


    How do you define "economic competitiveness"? They after all started out quite wealthy (the wealthiest in the world) but are now poorer than the average black in the US - or at least were, 10 years ago. Isn't that a cautionary tale?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:38 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 saidThe corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today.


    How have they done this? How would you propose that this problem be solved?

    The executives have taken exorbitant raises, benefits, and severance packages, instead of giving better raises to the workers. The solution is sharing the corporate profits better with the workers.


    Do you believe this would be the outcome of significantly more taxes? As for higher raises, benefits and severance packages, was this different in the 30 years previous? What changed?.

    What changed was the greed of the execs. I remember being told "you're lucky you got a job." Only in the '90s was the situation changed. Under Clinton, there wereore jobs than workers. The execs HATED that. We could leave a job and instantly have another job equal or better. So after Clinton, they made sure that was shut down.


    This suggests that execs acted as a group though - or that there was a policy shift as a result of animus against Clinton? But I'm still unclear what you think the trigger is/mechanism that allowed for this - and what you think the appropriate solution is.

    What part of greed don't you understand. The execs wrre just plain greedy. Maybe they were competing with each other over salary. Yes, it became a corporate culture thing. Like I said "you're lucky you got a job." That was their mindset.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:40 PM GMT
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 saidThe corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today.


    How have they done this? How would you propose that this problem be solved?

    The executives have taken exorbitant raises, benefits, and severance packages, instead of giving better raises to the workers. The solution is sharing the corporate profits better with the workers.


    Do you believe this would be the outcome of significantly more taxes? As for higher raises, benefits and severance packages, was this different in the 30 years previous? What changed?.

    What changed was the greed of the execs. I remember being told "you're lucky you got a job." Only in the '90s was the situation changed. Under Clinton, there wereore jobs than workers. The execs HATED that. We could leave a job and instantly have another job equal or better. So after Clinton, they made sure that was shut down.


    This suggests that execs acted as a group though - or that there was a policy shift as a result of animus against Clinton? But I'm still unclear what you think the trigger is/mechanism that allowed for this - and what you think the appropriate solution is.

    What part of greed don't you understand. The execs wrre just plain greedy. Maybe they were competing with each other over salary. Yes, it became a corporate culture thing. Like I said "you're lucky you got a job." That was their mindset.


    I don't see though how that changed from previous times - as I'm sure you'd agree it's not like greed just came from nowhere in the last few decades... but I am also unclear as to what you think the solution is for this. If the problem is greed, how do you propose that this is resolved so profits are better distributed to workers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:44 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    sctsm saidUh, this is actually my point... from a purely american conservative standpoint these countries are extremely "socialist." However, upon actual inspection, you see how they have found ways to maintain both economic competitiveness and extremely strong social safety nets and still have low levels of debt.

    If someone is going to bring up European socialism as a cautionary tale, they can't just ignore the countries that don't fit their spin...


    How do you define "economic competitiveness"? They after all started out quite wealthy (the wealthiest in the world) but are now poorer than the average black in the US - or at least were, 10 years ago. Isn't that a cautionary tale?


    Sorry I added to my response above...

    Global Competitiveness Report:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report#2012.E2.80.932013_rankings

    also during the 90s Sweden was engulfed in its own housing induced financial crises... Many of the reforms you quote above were instituted at that time.

    so a comparison with the US at the height of the dot com boom is just a snapshot...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 said
    riddler78 said
    Caslon21000 saidThe corporations and wealthy taking all the extra wealth generated over the past 30 years has prevented the economy from growing. The wealthy can only spend and consume so much. Had everyone gotten a slice of the pie, everyone would be better off today.


    How have they done this? How would you propose that this problem be solved?

    The executives have taken exorbitant raises, benefits, and severance packages, instead of giving better raises to the workers. The solution is sharing the corporate profits better with the workers.


    Do you believe this would be the outcome of significantly more taxes? As for higher raises, benefits and severance packages, was this different in the 30 years previous? What changed?.

    What changed was the greed of the execs. I remember being told "you're lucky you got a job." Only in the '90s was the situation changed. Under Clinton, there wereore jobs than workers. The execs HATED that. We could leave a job and instantly have another job equal or better. So after Clinton, they made sure that was shut down.

    No, I don't agree. There was a culture and educational change in the US (and maybe the western world) in the '60s. Do you're own thing, etc. perhaps the c
    This suggests that execs acted as a group though - or that there was a policy shift as a result of animus against Clinton? But I'm still unclear what you think the trigger is/mechanism that allowed for this - and what you think the appropriate solution is.

    What part of greed don't you understand. The execs wrre just plain greedy. Maybe they were competing with each other over salary. Yes, it became a corporate culture thing. Like I said "you're lucky you got a job." That was their mindset.


    I don't see though how that changed from previous times - as I'm sure you'd agree it's not like greed just came from nowhere in the last few decades... but I am also unclear as to what you think the solution is for this. If the problem is greed, how do you propose that this is resolved so profits are better distributed to workers?


    No, I don't agree. There was a culture and educational change in the US (and maybe the western world) in the '60s. Do you're own thing, etc. perhaps the corporate execs who grew up during those times had a greedier outlook on life.

    For instance, after WWII, George Eastman calculated the profit Kodsk made from the govt during the war and paid it back. Different mindset.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:56 PM GMT
    sctsm said
    riddler78 said
    sctsm saidUh, this is actually my point... from a purely american conservative standpoint these countries are extremely "socialist." However, upon actual inspection, you see how they have found ways to maintain both economic competitiveness and extremely strong social safety nets and still have low levels of debt.

    If someone is going to bring up European socialism as a cautionary tale, they can't just ignore the countries that don't fit their spin...


    How do you define "economic competitiveness"? They after all started out quite wealthy (the wealthiest in the world) but are now poorer than the average black in the US - or at least were, 10 years ago. Isn't that a cautionary tale?


    Sorry I added to my response above...

    Global Competitiveness Report:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report#2012.E2.80.932013_rankings

    also during the 90s Sweden was engulfed in its own housing induced financial crises... Many of the reforms you quote above were instituted at that time.

    so a comparison with the US at the height of the dot com boom is just a snapshot...


    It would appear that US purchasing power parity per capita still greatly exceeds that of Sweden (48441.56 USD in December of 2011)

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita-ppp

    vs Sweden's 41,300:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita[/url]

    As for income - that's why PPP in the study was used - which measures the purchasing power relative ot the income Swedes have versus Americans. So that for the basket of goods that Swedes buy, the dollar (or krona as the case may be) goes a lot less further than what happens for the average American. On a dollar per dollar basis, the Swedes have also been a lot more efficient at spending government funds versus say the US. The stat that always stuns me is that the US spends more on public healthcare per capita than Canada does - and yet that public healthcare goes only to a small fraction of the US population.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 7:59 PM GMT
    Caslon21000 saidNo, I don't agree. There was a culture and educational change in the US (and maybe the western world) in the '60s. Do you're own thing, etc. perhaps the corporate execs who grew up during those times had a greedier outlook on life.

    For instance, after WWII, George Eastman calculated the profit Kodsk made from the govt during the war and paid it back. Different mindset.


    OK so what's the solution? For companies like Google and Apple, they already pay considerably more than other industries and pay really good wages. But they are also some of the most profitable firms in the US.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 8:07 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    sctsm said
    riddler78 said
    sctsm saidUh, this is actually my point... from a purely american conservative standpoint these countries are extremely "socialist." However, upon actual inspection, you see how they have found ways to maintain both economic competitiveness and extremely strong social safety nets and still have low levels of debt.

    If someone is going to bring up European socialism as a cautionary tale, they can't just ignore the countries that don't fit their spin...


    How do you define "economic competitiveness"? They after all started out quite wealthy (the wealthiest in the world) but are now poorer than the average black in the US - or at least were, 10 years ago. Isn't that a cautionary tale?


    Sorry I added to my response above...

    Global Competitiveness Report:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report#2012.E2.80.932013_rankings

    also during the 90s Sweden was engulfed in its own housing induced financial crises... Many of the reforms you quote above were instituted at that time.

    so a comparison with the US at the height of the dot com boom is just a snapshot...


    It would appear that US purchasing power parity per capita still greatly exceeds that of Sweden (48441.56 USD in December of 2011)

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita-ppp

    vs Sweden's 41,300:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita[/url]

    As for income - that's why PPP in the study was used - which measures the purchasing power relative ot the income Swedes have versus Americans. So that for the basket of goods that Swedes buy, the dollar (or krona as the case may be) goes a lot less further than what happens for the average American. On a dollar per dollar basis, the Swedes have also been a lot more efficient at spending government funds versus say the US. The stat that always stuns me is that the US spends more on public healthcare per capita than Canada does - and yet that public healthcare goes only to a small fraction of the US population.

    But we don't die sitting in our emergency room waiting rooms.

    And is a small percentage? We have 10 times the population.

    Plus, remember the point I've made. Canada can be more discretionary in how it spends its tax dollars, because we foot the essential military costs. If Canada doesn't want to maintain a top notch submarine fleet, it doesn't have to. The US will de facto defend Canada.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 8:13 PM GMT
    Caslon21000 saidBut we don't die sitting in our emergency room waiting rooms.

    And is a small percentage? We have 10 times the population.


    The evidence on healthcare quality is mixed - certainly the US has better healthcare on the upper end of those who have insurance, but at the lower end? Canadians tend to wait and wait, and it's only going to get worse (though there have been a few improvements here and there - but it's increasingly unsustainable).

    But as for a small percentage - yes, the US does have 10 times the population but that's why I was referring to per capita rates. That if you divide what's spend on public healthcare in both US and Canada by the total population in each country, the number from the US is higher than that of Canada.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 8:20 PM GMT
    Read "The Case for Goliath" about how the US serves as de facto world govt and provides "govt" services to the world, but we don't get to tax the world in return.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 8:23 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    sctsm said
    riddler78 said
    sctsm saidUh, this is actually my point... from a purely american conservative standpoint these countries are extremely "socialist." However, upon actual inspection, you see how they have found ways to maintain both economic competitiveness and extremely strong social safety nets and still have low levels of debt.

    If someone is going to bring up European socialism as a cautionary tale, they can't just ignore the countries that don't fit their spin...


    How do you define "economic competitiveness"? They after all started out quite wealthy (the wealthiest in the world) but are now poorer than the average black in the US - or at least were, 10 years ago. Isn't that a cautionary tale?


    Sorry I added to my response above...

    Global Competitiveness Report:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report#2012.E2.80.932013_rankings

    also during the 90s Sweden was engulfed in its own housing induced financial crises... Many of the reforms you quote above were instituted at that time.

    so a comparison with the US at the height of the dot com boom is just a snapshot...


    It would appear that US purchasing power parity per capita still greatly exceeds that of Sweden (48441.56 USD in December of 2011)

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita-ppp

    vs Sweden's 41,300:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita[/url]

    As for income - that's why PPP in the study was used - which measures the purchasing power relative ot the income Swedes have versus Americans. So that for the basket of goods that Swedes buy, the dollar (or krona as the case may be) goes a lot less further than what happens for the average American. On a dollar per dollar basis, the Swedes have also been a lot more efficient at spending government funds versus say the US. The stat that always stuns me is that the US spends more on public healthcare per capita than Canada does - and yet that public healthcare goes only to a small fraction of the US population.


    While purchasing power parity is a step in the right direction for comparison, it still doesn't take into account Quality of Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index#The_Economist_Intelligence_Unit.E2.80.99s_quality-of-life_index.2C_2005 factors and outcomes, as you allude to in your healthcare spending example.

    However, I think we are digressing... both the US and Sweden rank among the best in the world in most economic and social indicators. My original point was that European style "Socialism" (as defined by the OP) is not the reason behind the fiscal cliff. Financial mismanagement is. The Nordic countries are good examples on how to a maintain strong social safety net and sound government finances.