Why are most democracies today socialist?

Post Reply New Topic

Sure, let's just allow China to be the world's police and see how that works out.

If China wants to fritter away their economic, political, and military power by stretching themselves thin across the world, let them. Maybe that way, Islamic religious fanatics will attack them and leave us alone.

Many of 'the productive' are struggling to make ends meet, and or need EBT or other programs to help them out or are simply not making ends meet. Explain to me why someone working 40 hours a week should struggle to make ends meet and make a living for them-self? Also the current system is allowing the most wealthy to hog most of the wealth and resources to themselves....socialism would help to fight that problem by taking some of that leverage away from them and giving it back to the common people. You think people who currently like the idea of socialism are defending the current status quo? No we are quite unhappy with it, just don't see more capitalism as a solution.

And no its not ridiculously over the top to suggest if you gut all the social safety network and screw over people who need that help.....they might have a lot of trouble surviving. What is over the top is to claim they should just get rid of taxes and the social safety network and that will magically fix everything.

Yeah keep on defending that crap.....does it occur maybe your ridiculously overly elitist attitude is what maybe turns people away from you rather than your looks. I know totally off topic right....but come on, you seem to love the idea of eugenics and elitism and you're surprised people are turned off by that?

Those who wish America to become socialist fail to consider the fact that a welfare state cannot co-exist with open borders.

Yet democrats advocate both positions.

You got that right!! !

What about us who don't want to be care for? Your precious little socialist ideology ties up money into nonproductive channels, which means that less money gets invested into avenues that would create jobs and encourage cash flow.

1. Most people have someone they love or would hate to lose. Health care/infrastructure/education benefits everyone. Independence is the greatest illusion of the modern age.

2. This idea of tying up money in nonproductive channels is just silly. Yes, for communist planned economies this might be the case, but social democracies are very economically efficient. Look up UN numbers on just about anything.

The fact is, the US economy is in decline. Its infrastructure is out of date, and is not being renewed fast enough, due to the fact that US politicians are swiftly losing the ability to agree on anything. Although the US has some of the best universities in the world, their average university holds a low standard. The rate of innovation per capita is lower than a lot of other industrialized countries.

Another very good capitalist example is India. Although a lot of effort has gone into analyzing the BRIC countries and regarding them through the same lens, it turns out that although India is a low cost country compared to China, China is twice as productive, mainly due to stronger infrastructure.

The US wastes way too much money on wars, overpriced health services and keeping people in prison for minor offences. If you ever want an example of an unproductive channel, that's it.

Leaving you with an old cartoon....the topic is depressingly familiar:

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I ... -18-73.jpg

I still say that socialism ( i.e. putting more and more money into the government's hands) is inefficient. The higher the taxes, the less work is done. Part of the problem with the U.S.'s aging infrastructure is that capital that should be spent on upgrading industries is going to exorbitant tax loads, to grossly overpaid union workers, and to greedy investors.

It's simple. The definition of "socialism" used by the OP is "anything other than America". Most democracies are not America, so most democracies are socialist.

In reality, most democracies are centrist social democracies, with some policies which are to the right of America (market freedom) and some which are to the left (workers' rights, universal public healthcare).

Hmm what about quality of life and enough resources and wealth to go around? And what do you consider nonproductive channels anyways? Also endlessly 'creating jobs' isn't going to help when the jobs that are already here aren't providing enough income for people to make ends meet......people with full time jobs needing EBT and other government help is pretty common. Creating more jobs with just as crappy wages isn't going to solve anything....not to mention technology is taking over a lot of jobs people used to be responsible for.

You're precious little capitalist ideology is putting a damper on progress.

You put it as if the choice were between:

1. Comprehensive federally-run cradle-to-grave welfare, providing every citizen with free food, clothing, shelter, education, and of course health care; and

2. OMG MILLIONS WILL DIE!!1!! !

This is a false alternative.



You do know that the federal government has only been seriously in the welfare business for about fifty years, yes? Kindly post a few photos, taken before then, of the emaciated bodies of the poor, stacked in the hundreds like cordwood on city streets, while rich people walk by laughing and rattling their jewelry. Come on, there must be lots of them.

I'm actually a big fan of a "social safety net." But letting the federal government run it is like trusting Donald Trump to keep an eye on your hairspray collection.

I'll ask you again: suppose I've earned some money honestly. It doesn't matter if my neighbor just paid me $50 for fixing his washing machine, or if I own a business which repairs appliances and last year I cleared $100,000 – the principle is the same. To exactly how much of that do you believe you are entitled, and on what logical grounds?

I'm someone who likes to discuss things trying to be rational, no matter where it leads. I don't need to dismiss anyone's views by claiming the person belongs to some group or other; it's simply irrelevant for judging the ideas themselves. Two plus two stays four even when Hitler says it. Even if I'm a hypocrite and the most disgusting person on Earth, natural selection and its effect on the gene pool will be as much of a fact as it is when someone noble and respectable says it is, and no matter whether they share your political and religious beliefs or not.

if bad genes were the only thing that caused poverty, you might have a point. also, people with "bad genes", even if they get benefits from the government, aren't reproducing in large numbers. i know. i just resigned from seven years as a social worker. most of my clients on benefits had no kids.

No, bad genes don’t have to be the only cause of poverty for my point to stand. There are always a lot of unpredictable environmental effects conditioning natural selection, and it still works. Letting those who can’t support themselves live at the expense of others will only favor the spread of whatever genes tend to make people more dependent and less likely to pull their own weight, no matter how minute the effect of genetics may be. Even if they fail to reproduce, they’re still draining resources from better-off people who could otherwise reproduce more, give their own children a better future, and even be themselves selected for a better ability to defend themselves if they had to fight desperate, starving people trying to rob them, rather than feeding them for free.

And I say this while knowing I’m just about the first who would be culled if left to my own devices. Just because it wouldn’t be good for me, and I’d probably break down and cry for mercy when these ideas were implemented, doesn’t mean they’re wrong, or that I’d deserve any mercy.

Uh oh, anyone following the news knows there's trouble brewing in the socialist democracy of Sweden. Stay tuned.

Oh, and don't be surprised if the current migrant crisis causes European countries to swing a little bit more to the right.