Communists

[fadingCaptain]

Some homeless stats courtesy Wikipedia:

EU total population: 459,500,000
EU homeless: 3,000,000
US total population: 298,754,511
US homeless: 750,000

 

[spuriousmonkey]

well see thats my point spurious
have any idea how many immigrants come to america each year illegally?
our economy cannot possibly absorb all these people.

how would finland deal with all those immigrants?

i am all for helping someone when they are down and out but i be damned if i am going to support their lazy ass when they are able to work

sorry about the delay in responding i am keeping an eye on some downloads from the archive.

1. If I remember correctly then the US economy depends on cheap labour from illegal aliens.
2. Immigration is widespread within european nations. It's not a US only problem.

 

[fadingCaptain]

I should qualify those stats I posted with the same statement used by Wiki:

"Each country has a different approach to counting homeless people, so comparisons should be made with caution."

 

[Chatha]

Show me where I said money grows on trees. It seems to me you have no arguments, statistics, facts to back your own points up and now you try to ridicule a caricature of socialism.

Okay so lets end the argument, just let it go. You prefer the government doing all the selling and spending I prefer the people. Lets agree to disagree.

The country with the highest HDI in the world is actually Norway.

Okay M.r Norway what has that got to do with anything? LOL I will still die before I move to Norway, I hate cold weather period. Pakistan even has a higher GDP than Norway, so what?

You fail to see however the main advantage of a socialist system. You see, it is always remarkable to me that this needs to be explained to Americans.

Shut the hell up! maybe capitalismj should be explained to Europe. Its the same capitalism that is responsible for many innovative inventions including the computer you are typing on now. Oh let me guess the European government built and paid for the computer?

Equality. The rich are less rich and the poor are less poor. Everything is pulled towards the middle. In the US extreme poverty is rampant.

Extreme poverty? First of all the one's who live in poverty make themselves poor, there is something called education and general good citizenship.

That is the third world aspect of its society. It's easy to wave the high GDP per capita in other people's faces, but if you would do that to me I would expect you would do that in utter embarrasment. The highest GDP per capita and still so much poverty.

Where is the poverty? the only one's living in poverty are usually immigrants with no education, same in every country. Any and all countries with huge population have the same problem but not as rampant as the U.S: China, India, England, Italy, Argentina, Nigeria, Brazil, e.t.c. Like I said you cannot compare the U.S to Finland on any level, there are too many differences and factors. However if you have to compare the U.S burries finland if of cause you are a citizen of the state. Lets stop the wishful thinking shall we?

That's where socialism wins hands down. The excesses are less.

To the people yes, but not to the government and government bodies, the exesses are still more with the socialist government. Also the socialist government is bigger and there is less freedom of trade. Are you hard at hearing or just plain stupid?

And btw Finland has one of the most competitive economies in the world.

I am happy it does, best wishes.

I think you have no clue about the workings of any European country if I read your post. It's just all made up. A work of fiction you present as the truth. You have learned during your indoctrination as a proper capitalist that this is how socialist countries work and that is how it is. Shame it has nothing to do with the truth.

Maybe I don't but I am not even in the position to discuss it with you at the moment. Exactly what is fictional about what I just mentioned? I would like some notes.

One of the motto's of capitalists is that big is better

. I am glad we cleared that up, note you mentioned "capitalism" not socialism. You are finally okay with me here.

Companies merge because then they can be more competitive. Bigger means less! Germany is a third the size of the US. They seem to have no trouble maintaining socialist aspects in their society

Can you give examples of all these ideas you are spinning around? Besides America has no real problems either.

and that even after absorbing a bankrupt nation (DDR). If you really want to throw in the size argument you better come up with something to back up your claim.

You have no idea of economics and you seem to be generalizing a great deal. All I know is that everybody sells, either government of civilian. You can't just sit on your ass and expect living standards to fall from the sky. Living standard (largely one man's opinion) equals goods and services, and goods and services equals money. Given that the U.S has a higher GDP than most countries its easy to see that the living standard in the U.S is higher than many. The U.S has a GDP higher than all E.U countries put together. But like I said living standard is still one man's opinion.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

 

[guthrie]

In socialism the government does the merchandising and selling, in capitalism the people do the merchandising and selling.

Both ideas are essentially the same if you ask me. According to “sporiousminkey” French or Finish money grows on trees, to me all those nice ports and subsidies had to come from somewhere. In socialist systems such as the French’s the government owns and peddles a huge amount of businesses in goods and services including cars, electronics, defense, banking and insurance, telecom, clothing, e.t.c. Finland does the same practice, they sell vodka, technology, agriculture, e.t.c, they particularly trade with E.U states. The govnt also makes out loans to individuals as capital. Hence it is actually the socialist governments that’s bigger in size and power compared to the capitalist government, everybody knows this.

Broadly speaking, yes. Of course, it only really works if you can keep democratic control of thet gvt and what it does, and openness and transparency are your watchwords. This may be where size helps, since it is easier to keep things open and transparent in a smaller country such as Finland, than in such a big one as the USA.

Another reason why the U.S is not compatible with socialism is because of the population size. Any government would rather prefer the people go out and fend for themselves; its called division of labor, no government likes the burden of having to cater for 200 million people.

Well, that is why they have states.
Also, gvts quite like to cater for 200 million people, ebcause they can get 200 million peopls worth of taxes, which is more than 6 million peoples worth of taxes. They often the squander said money on stuff, but that is one of these things that both communists and conservatives or libertarians agree on.

Its not impossible to cater for 200 million people but it’s the mighty daunting task that strains any government, plus you can imagine how big the government has to be to accommodate this task. The U.S government can’t even repatriate 12 million people much less provide for 200 million;

You would be talking about the illegal mexican immigrants, wouldnt you? Well, the gvt could repatriate them if it wanted to; its just that compulsory ID cards, compulsory deportation of anyone not carrying such and ID card and various other methods, wouldnt go down very well. Plus, even that woudlnt work very well, and, just as importantly, no company or organisation could repatriate 12 million people either.
Besides, nobody in socialism is talking about the gvt providing for 200 million- simply that 200 million will provide for themselves and each other, and having a gvt as an intermediary in some of the transactions is very useful, indeed necessary.

 

[Chatha]

You would be talking about the illegal mexican immigrants, wouldnt you? Well, the gvt could repatriate them if it wanted to; its just that compulsory ID cards, compulsory deportation of anyone not carrying such and ID card and various other methods, wouldnt go down very well.

According to whom?

Plus, even that woudlnt work very well, and, just as importantly, no company or organisation could repatriate 12 million people either.

Maybe you are right.

Besides, nobody in socialism is talking about the gvt providing for 200 million- simply that 200 million will provide for themselves and each other, and having a gvt as an intermediary in some of the transactions is very useful, indeed necessary.

Okay then I am satisfied with the discussion as far. I think the U.S do practice what you just said, as you know not all practicality ever whins up perfectly. I don't think governments much like doing "everything" for the peope apart from collecting taxes when tax is due; the U.S government collects taxes indeed form 300 million people indeed. You have to understand that there are 300 million people living in the U.S, thats way more than Finland, I'd personally like to see the magic Finland has to accomodate perfectly 300 million people. To me population will always be a factor as long as resources are limited, whether its socialism, maoism, or capitalism. I generally agree with your post.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

According to whom? Maybe you are right. Okay then I am satisfied with the discussion as far. I think the U.S do practice what you just said, as you know not all practicality ever whins up perfectly. I don't think governments much like doing "everything" for the peope apart from collecting taxes when tax is due; the U.S government collects taxes indeed form 300 million people indeed. You have to understand that there are 300 million people living in the U.S, thats way more than Finland, I'd personally like to see the magic Finland has to accomodate perfectly 300 million people. To me population will always be a factor as long as resources are limited, whether its socialism, maoism, or capitalism. I generally agree with your post.

Magic finland is actually quite in a disadvantagous position. The only natural resource it has is timber. That's it. It's climate is harsh. It's population density low. Still it can provide its social principles for all.

If the population of Finland would be 300 million distributed over a relative comparable area nothing would change. You seem to fail to see the main point of the Finnish society.

The fins want social values. The Finnish government represents the Finnish people.

Americans want to pursue their dream of riches. The Fins want a stable and social society. That's all. There is no magic in numbers. The Fins are in a disadvantagous position relative to the US. Lower GDP. No natural resources except timber. Harsh Climate. Superpowers right next door (formerly Sweden and Russia, now only Russia). Relative isolation from rest of Europe.

And all this doesn't matter because you fail to see the main point. Americans don't want a society based on socialist principles. They couldn't give a shit about the education of their neighbours children. As long as their own receive good education. That's the quintessential difference. The USA could easily become a socialist state. But not with the attitude of the average american.

And so you condem your fellow countrymen to conditions that do not exist in these excesses in socialist minded nations such as Finland.

Don't blame the size. It's cheap. And I am repeating myself again. Put forward some theories that show that big countries cannot be ruled by socialist principles and succeed. You cannot. I've asked it before and you just cannot.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

But let me recapitulate the discussion so far.

America has the highest standard of living. Socialist principles couldn't achieve the same.

- Actually socialist nations can achieve exactly the same level or higher.

America is so big socialism can't work.

- That's just merely an opinion not substantiated by anything.

 

[leopold]

what would happen to me if i emmigrated to finland and sat on my butt?

what if i was a hustler that wanted to start my own business?

the picture i have of socialism is this:
the "rich" pays for the poor. is that the case?
if it is then it's plain to me why the rich would choose a different country (america maybe?) to live in

have you heard the saying need is the mother of invention?
in a socialist state invention would be curtailed. why? because there would be no need you are eliminating need by making the rich pay for the poor

in my opinion a pure socialist state cannot long exist

 

[Chatha]

why some people can't mind their own business is beyond me

 

[spuriousmonkey]

what would happen to me if i emmigrated to finland and sat on my butt?

what if i was a hustler that wanted to start my own business?

the picture i have of socialism is this:
the "rich" pays for the poor. is that the case?
if it is then it's plain to me why the rich would choose a different country (america maybe?) to live in

have you heard the saying need is the mother of invention?
in a socialist state invention would be curtailed. why? because there would be no need you are eliminating need by making the rich pay for the poor

in my opinion a pure socialist state cannot long exist

We have heard the basic propaganda regarding socialism from you lotnow already many times in this thread and on this forum. Despite all the efforts you cannot go beyond the platitude that you think socialism is. It's just getting pathetic. All you can think of is the occasional parasite. In other words: you cannot consider the thought that you have to make a sacrifice for society because someone else might profit from it.

How difficult can it be to realize you are just indoctrinated to think in this selfish manner? Do you think the US doesn't have parasites? I'll bet there are many more than in Finland. Just because of the prevalence of selfishness and moreover the worshipping of selfish behaviour.

So...if you can't go beyond standard bullshit about socialism. Just do us all a favour and shut up (all of you).

 

[Chatha]

well said spurious, though I really don't see the difference between the two ideas. Think about it sporious, think well and think hard. Do you think goods and sevrices would be so cheap and readily available without some sort of capitalism in the world? I like the idea of socialism because it breeds equality but you have to give people things to do to occupy thier time(jobs). Some jobs are more preferable to others and that is where inequality creeps in. Socialism is back-door capitalism, practiced by the rich and government of a state, it creates equality but puts freedom at peril. That's why it's called "land of the free". What say you now?

 

[leopold]

We have heard the basic propaganda regarding socialism from you

propaganda? what propaganda?
i am simply asking questions and giving my opinion about the subject.

for my next question
how does socialism deal with the users of society?

 

[Chatha]

Found out what HD is. HD is acronym for human development, which is euphemism for optimum potential, another rather big word for living standard. Talk about advertising...then nut-jobs like sporious would now come to this thread and preach how uncapitalist socialist countries are. Socialsist countries are just as responsible for all the oppression and dirty deeds in third world countries, particularly France and francophone countries around the world. Tough sell!

 

[guthrie]

Right, so we're all evil, and should all just shoot ourselves right now...

Way to argue, man.

 

[guthrie]

According to whom?

Maybe I was unfairly tarring you with another brush- see a fisking of a suggestion of how to remove all the illegals in the USA
What you said just reminded me of it a little, but I seem to have misjudged you a bit.

Maybe you are right. Okay then I am satisfied with the discussion as far. I think the U.S do practice what you just said, as you know not all practicality ever whins up perfectly. I don't think governments much like doing "everything" for the peope apart from collecting taxes when tax is due; the U.S government collects taxes indeed form 300 million people indeed. You have to understand that there are 300 million people living in the U.S, thats way more than Finland, I'd personally like to see the magic Finland has to accomodate perfectly 300 million people. To me population will always be a factor as long as resources are limited, whether its socialism, maoism, or capitalism. I generally agree with your post.

Yes, population and resources will be important, although not central to the equation.

Myself, I think it partly comes down to character what you are politically. I am aa leftie because I would not feel happy/ at home in the kind of liberatarian wonderland our beloved leaders seem intent on building, and haveing grown up in the UK and not had to worry about paying for my healthcare (I do pay, in taxes, but I mean worrying about when something goes wrong and my insurance doesnt cover it) I find that I am suddenly on the left of a great many of the politicans that are currently out there.

 

[guthrie]

propaganda? what propaganda?
i am simply asking questions and giving my opinion about the subject.

for my next question
how does socialism deal with the users of society?

Can you define "users" a bit better? Do you mean freeloaders?
If so, the answer is simply, give them enough to live on, but not as much as they could have if they were actually prioductively working, and jail them when they steal.

Now, me, I would like some more community involvement in this. For example, a few of the people at work admit that they know peopel who are fiddling benefits. In what I would think of as a proper socialist country, they would recognise that these freeloaders are stealing from them personally, so they would shop them, or get together their neighbours and threaten a lynching party unless said freeloader stops lying. essentially, what stops things being quite like that is ideas of personal privacy, and the holdover of the older way of treating the gvt as an independent arbiter. Which in the case of freeloading benefits cheats, is rather hard, since, in order to be a disinterested arbiter, the gvt has to employ people to check up on things, and said people have limited time and capabilities, therefore the benefits cheat can fool them without too much trouble. But its hard to fool your neighbours who are around you all the time.

 

[Chatha]

I am not saying you are evil, all I was rather insinuating was that all this wealth from socialist countries has to come from somewhere. Pity, but if you look at the world about 100 years ago French countries were dominating and dribbling francophone countries around the world better than Ronaldinho; most notably in Africa where most of the banks and mining firms were French. The British established the first official bank in Nigeria, which still stands tall today. You don't have to be Neil Borh to figure out that certain more powerful countries are expoiting others as we speak today. The french and the british also tried to economicaly dominate each other too; the 100 years war. And lets not forget the British domination on the scots for years before their independence. To me the world has been one big happy single village for a long time, and nations are a little more than mere corporations doing business and making deals with another, which sometimes includes favors. The other aspect of it, the nationality and national anthems e.t.c package are really ceremonial. Its not hard to figure out, at the end of the day economics comes first before any nationalist agenda, survival always comes first. Many countries have been bought and sold a long time ago and many Judicial systems have been bought and sold to the highest bidder.

 

[draqon]

 

[Absane]

You typo after temporarily.. with a "u."

Nice try though