Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 467
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?Page 24 of 28    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)

And frankly, modern corporations depend on socialism to educate their workers; move their goods; protect their patents and copyrights. One of the biggest problems with American competitiveness is the lack of socialism in health care.


Good point to look at here. Everything you list here as being a form of 'socialism' is a bit off the mark for the US. Education is a federal mandate for public education but a state responsibility. Moving of goods is a state to state agreement. Patents and copyrights are federal as they apply to all the states.

The problem with American competitiveness is not the lack of socialized healthcare but the corruption of healthcare by the federal government that has made it impossible for anyone to afford. The problem with American competiveness is that we are less competitive. Blame the states. I am in California and I do.

Healthcare should be a state decision and not the federal governments. What works in Hawaii may not work in Oregon. Overriding the states’ rights is where the problems occur.
So, we are back to the constitution. Which limits all of these things for good reason.
The only way to progress further into socialized anything is to violate / change / overthrow the constitution.

So, my question remains. What is the real end goal?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 468
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 1:15:25 PM

What you happen to miss is what the end goal of socialism is. It is a totalitarian, top down, control from the central govt. regime.


I do not agree with that statement.

I think you would be rather hard pressed to find any socialist that would stand up and say that they want a totalitarian rule. The end goal of socialism is the protection of human dignity and the effort to remove the stress of being in a constant state of survival mode wondering where your next meal will come from or that your life and family will be devastated by illness. It is a commendable ideal but unrealistic to expect.

My problems with it is that it is not practical and due to the number of people and the complexity involved it is in no way sustainable. Because it is not sustainable it leads to an inevitable collapse which opens the doors to forms of tyranny.

The best reference I have to this is Star Trek. Star Trek is the form of ideal socialist society. It requires food that can be replicated, healthcare 'cures' by simple pills and diagnosis by waving a wand, transportation by teleportation and what they don't show but have hinted at was that housing was provided. The basics of survivability are provided through cheap, extremely high quality, easily distributed and mass reproducible. Until we have technically reached the point of doing the above... It is not practical and will always be unsustainable and corruptible by the few.

My question still remains: What is the real end goal?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 469
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 1:15:43 PM
Again, what I take issue with, is the continued insistence by some, that ANY thing that ANYONE wants to do, that they think of as being socialist, will inevitably lead to a totalitarian state ruling all our lives.

THAT is patent nonsense on it's face, proven again and again by all of the notations about "socialist" things, some of which HAVE BEEN in place since the U.S. was created in 1789. Much of the rest of the world has had socialized medicine for MANY decades, and far from having slid under the heal of totalitarianism, more and more states have thrown the tyrants out.

What I would call for, to perhaps make the discussion at least a LITTLE rational, is to ask that if you want to declare that this or that idea which you think is socialist is a bad idea, then explain why it is BY ITSELF a bad idea, and leave off the magical thinking about how "today, they want everyone to pay for everyone elses education, but it's a trap because tomorrow, they will want to assign you a bed mate of their choosing." or whatever.

In my studies, I have learned of many nations that came under totalitarian rule. NONE of them did so as a result of socialist ideas being democratically adopted. ALL of them were overrun violently, save the Nazi take over of Germany. Even that was not gradual, nor was it AS democratically arranged as it's supporters pretend it was.

Therefore there is absolutely NO support on the historic record for a fear that adopting this or that idea, which has had support from socialists, will EVER result in totalitarianism taking hold. There IS however, a fair amount of historic proof that RIGHT WING ideas of empowering private enterprise entities to act without check, HAS repeatedly led to totalitarian situations.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 470
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 1:52:03 PM

What I would call for, to perhaps make the discussion at least a LITTLE rational, is to ask that if you want to declare that this or that idea which you think is socialist is a bad idea, then explain why it is BY ITSELF a bad idea, and leave off the magical thinking about how "today, they want everyone to pay for everyone elses education, but it's a trap because tomorrow, they will want to assign you a bed mate of their choosing." or whatever


This is actually not too difficult of a question.

Education - Should be up to the individual states to determine at what level they allow the communities to run. The federal government has mandated public education to grade 12 to be free. It should not however have any authority over the rules of how and what is taught. That should be state controlled as well as the ability to allow for communities that choose to opt out for private schools or charter schools in which case those schools should be responsible for their own funding.

The problem I have with almost all forms of Federal Controlled anything is that there is no option other than to have a single standard set and applied to all equally. The standards applied are done by leveling out the standard and not allowing for natural differences. In education this goes by community, dialects, geography, etc. All of these things make each community unique and the standards of one do not ever equally apply to all making the standards of all just a bit lower to in an effort to make it fair. The standards are formulas. There is no human dignity in the formulas. It is not possible to support human dignity within a formula applied to all. It is only possible to allow for that at a local level in which the requirement is to maintain a set of standards determined at the state level and agreed upon by the community.

Just about any answer I would have would be along that line.

Liberalism believes that the federal government is the best to provide these things. I believe it tries to provide these things but fails to do so adequately and in doing so takes away part of an individual’s choice and a bit of their freedom and drive to succeed. The reason I feel it fails to do so adequately is because I would like the best for myself. I believe everyone else would also. In order to attempt to provide the best for everyone you will either run out of money or resources or choose to give less to all. If the Government is the provider I have no choice but to accept what is provided and if that gets taken away I will be angry. Greece.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 471
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 2:59:11 PM
Again, what I take issue with, is the continued insistence by some, that ANY thing that ANYONE wants to do, that they think of as being socialist, will inevitably lead to a totalitarian state ruling all our lives.


I'll say it again: Within broad limits, any of the 50 states can spend its revenues on whatever public services a majority of its residents want. The Supreme Court has recognized for a very long time that states have inherent authority to make laws and policies. This is usually called the "police power." As long as a state doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution, or any federal law or treaty, its policies--however anyone cares to describe them--are no one else's concern.

But the United States has no inherent authority. It has only the powers the Constitution gives it. And it's beyond question that the people who wrote and adopted the Constitution wanted those powers to be strictly limited. The danger they saw in concentrated government power is as real today as then, because people are as far from being angels as ever.

The 14th Amendment in particular--at least as the Supreme Court has interpreted it--has expanded those powers. Since about 1900, the Court has made its Due Process Clause the basis for a long series of decisions which have applied most of the Bill of Rights--most recently the 2d Amendment--to the states, where they had never applied before.

Also, during the past several decades, especially, victim groups of every stripe have made the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause their weapon of choice in their crusades to impose their will on the majority. But even so, the Court has usually been sensitive to the need to balance federal authority against the 10th Amendment and the states' police power. The Constitution is a social contract to form a *federal* government--and not a *national* one.


There IS however, a fair amount of historic proof that RIGHT WING ideas of empowering private enterprise entities to act without check, HAS repeatedly led to totalitarian situations.


I don't consider free-market capitalism a "right wing" idea. It's the system Adam Smith argued the virtues of in "The Wealth of Nations," and it goes hand-in-hand with individual liberty. The book appeared in 1776 and was standard reading for the founders of this country. It's not an accident that this country's government is designed to promote a free, self-governing people whose property rights are strongly protected.

For this country's first 100 years or more, almost unhindered capitalism was the rule. And yet people lived under far less government regulation than today. It's hard to imagine how a nation could be further from totalitarianism than this one was. It's as a country's economy depends less on individual decisions and more on central government planning that its people begin to lose their freedom.

The U.S. was not designed to be a social democratic country like Sweden or Italy or the post-WWII U.K. And despite the best efforts of this president and his allies, it is not one yet. We should look to what is happening in Europe and be warned.


The federal government has mandated public education to grade 12 to be free.


How and when has it done that? It's true that idea has been favored in this country from the beginning, but the Constitution doesn't give the U.S. any authority over education. I agree that public education is a matter for each state to decide.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 472
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 4:44:03 PM

How and when has it done that? It's true that idea has been favored in this country from the beginning, but the Constitution doesn't give the U.S. any authority over education. I agree that public education is a matter for each state to decide


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_20_00007801----000-.html
20 USCS § 7801(21),
(21) Free public education
The term “free public education” means education that is provided—

(A) at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without tuition charge; and

(B) as elementary school or secondary school education as determined under applicable State law, except that the term does not include any education provided beyond grade 12

----
So, I'm not entirely smoking crack. And for the record. My favorite code is 42 USC Sec. 666
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000666----000-.html
Everything you ever wanted to know about where big brother lives and how to slowly take over society by generational control lives in that code. My favorite is section 14 which establishes "High-volume, automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases" This entire code begins the replacement of the father by the state. Without the father figure and dependence on the state the children will be comfortable with the idea as the state providing for them. A few generations of this and what do you have? Lots of dependent voters.

I am a computer guy... I know what 'to be used to its fullest extent' means when it comes to computer systems. Fortunately I don't think this section has occurred yet as it is just to complex at this point in time. However... It is a requirement to receive federal funding to comply. I don't think it is healthy for any government to have this much information and power. Add to that socialized forms of healthcare, education, property rights and you have a monster with serious power over the lives of people.

That’s my conspiracy for the thread.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 473
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:37:01 PM
Matchlight: I've been meaning to ask. I think I understand (though I disagree) with your position on all this, except:

You seem to think that it's SOCIALISM if the NATIONAL government does something, but it's NOT socialism if a STATE government does exactly the SAME thing.

I genuinely don't understand how the SIZE of the political unit has anything to do with whether or not something is dangerous and wrongful socialism. To me, wrong is wrong, and oppression is oppression, no matter who is doing it.

Could you clarify your position on this?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 474
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 5:55:54 PM

Of course not, because they know if that they DO agree with the fact that socialism is a top down, centrally controlled system, NOBODY would agree with them. They count on most people being too ignortant to see whats coming. A very large percentage who also espouse the greatness of socialism also haev no clue as to what it really is, because they have mixed up a community doing things on a community basis for the good of the community and socialism, and those two things are very different.

You've never lived under a socialist government. You've never actually talked to a socialist. But somehow you "know" what socialism is. Instead of listening to people who aren't socialists, why don't you listen to socialists about what socialism is and isn't? You see, when you say, "NOBODY would agree with them," that includes socialists. You don't get to make up the arguments you will fight against - you have to actually engage with real ideas.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 475
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 6:06:05 PM
You didn't live in a socialist country. You lived under a totalitarian communist regime. That's like saying you know that Constitutional Monarchies are evil because Ivan the Terrible was, well, terrible. They're not the same.

I have lived under actual socialist government, voted in, then out by the democratic process. That's socialism.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 476
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/10/2011 6:06:13 PM
Paul...
Capitalism works the same way, only that "other peoples money" now comes from socialist/commie lending institutions on the back side of Mal-Wartization of capitalism. Who's your daddy now? Our economy is built on a house of cards, dependent on the ownership of socialist/capitalist investors who won by being flexible, more ruthless, and just as honest as we have been.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html

I recently had the opportunity at the funeral of a good mutual friend, to discuss the concept of communism vs. capitalism with someone like you from a previous part of life. At that pool-side party 25 years ago, I warned him and his capitalist primacy buds, that China would not have to bomb us to defeat us, that they would use the tools we used to own us. He was a bit cowed by the admission that I was right then, but moreso when I asked what he was doing for a living now. Back then, he was a high ranking executive in the steel industry. Now he is a consultant for the Chinese Steel Industy. So it goes. Things mix, change, converge, and the Chinese are upwardly mobile as the capitalist extremists are downwardly mobile. Evolution is not for the static and immobile.

While we refuse to willingly admit we are among the most manipulated populace in the world, the industries that control us, revel in their abilities to mangle our perceptions.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45208498
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 477
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/11/2011 4:27:11 AM
The problem isn't JUST that some socialist countries HAVE, as Paul's was, been dreadful regimes.

The problem we have here, is that so many people who justifiably hate those repressive states, have hypnotized, or otherwise fooled themselves into thinking that ANYTHING that's done by such states, or ANYTHING that is said to be a part of the socialist ideals, no matter what it is, is therefore BAD, and will ALWAYS cause whatever nation it is applied in, to BECOME one of those totalitarian states.

Thus, if something called socialized medicine was done in those repressive states, then ALL socialized medicine is BAD. It's guilt by association, which the "freedom fighters" SHOULD, by all calculations, be opposed to, since THAT habit of thinking leads DIRECTLY to totalitarianism. Unfortunately, the most vocal opponents of socialist ideas, especially in the U.S., tend to subscribe unthinkingly to "guilt by association," making exceptions ONLY for their own designated, short list of "good guys."

Thus, George Bush can support Federal leadership and interference in State Education systems, WITHOUT being attacked for applying socialist ideals, but anyone from the Democrats side who proposes the same thing gets pilloried and accused of pushing us into a totalitarian socialist future.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 478
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/11/2011 8:41:27 AM

Thus, George Bush can support Federal leadership and interference in State Education systems, WITHOUT being attacked for applying socialist ideals, but anyone from the Democrats side who proposes the same thing gets pilloried and accused of pushing us into a totalitarian socialist future.


The problem is
We are being told we are near bankrupt.
We are being told the rich are hijacking society
We are being told that we are killing the planet
We are being told we are being told that we don’t care enough
We are being told that we are racist
We are being told that we are selfish

Just because it sounds like a nice idea and would be really nice to have doesn't make what was presented and passed without a vote a good idea.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 479
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/11/2011 11:28:46 AM
Thus, George Bush can support Federal leadership and interference in State Education systems, WITHOUT being attacked for applying socialist ideals, but anyone from the Democrats side who proposes the same thing gets pilloried and accused of pushing us into a totalitarian socialist future.


I don't care whether it was Bush doing those things, or someone else. If they're not legitimate, anyone is wrong to do them. Neither President Bush was anything like a conservative.


I genuinely don't understand how the SIZE of the political unit has anything to do with whether or not something is dangerous and wrongful socialism. To me, wrong is wrong, and oppression is oppression, no matter who is doing it.


Governments make laws to establish official social policies--we'll have so many public parks, or this kind of fire and police services, or that kind of public roads, and so on. People may differ about what to call the result, or whether it's wise, efficient, burdensome, etc.

I don't care if someone wants to call a set of public policies "socialism," or something else, or if he adores those policies or detests them. What concerns me is whether a law or policy is legitimate. The rule of law is a broad idea, and not something we can define exactly in every circumstance. But that's no excuse for not hewing to it as best we know how. Our freedom depends on it. "Where the law ends, tyranny begins" is still true.

A state law or policy could be just as wise, or wrong, or beneficial, or oppressive as a federal one, at least as far as that state's residents were concerned. But as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, or a federal law or treaty, or some other state's rights, the only opinion of that law or policy which counts is the opinion of the majority in that state. If they want to make it a state law that dog owners must have state-approved diapers on their pets in any public place, or do almost any other thing they like, they can. Until 1947, for God's sake, any state that wanted to could have established an official church.

On the other hand, it makes no difference how enlightened or wondrous anyone thinks a federal law or policy is, if the federal government lacks the authority for it. The states only agreed to give the United States *some* of their powers. The Constitution, as amended, sets the terms of that agreement. If most Americans no longer like those terms, they can amend them. But if most of us would rather just disregard them, then our 200-plus year-long experiment in self-government is finished, and we weren't to be trusted to keep the flame.

People can and do differ about the constitutional basis for federal laws and policies, but there always has to be one. Where there isn't, we have rule by arbitrary dictate, which is not enlightened or wondrous. This President, for example, claims that forcing us all to buy federally approved medical insurance, under threat of criminal penalties, is a valid exercise of Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. If that's true, Congress can also make it a federal crime not to buy *other* goods and services, or to buy ones the federal government doesn't approve of.

If there's some basis for excluding basic things like food, or clothing, or housing, or transportation from that kind of federal control, I'd like to know what it is. If anything, it's easier to see how those things are part of interstate commerce than an insurance policy is. I don't see how a country where that passed for the rule of law could seriously claim to be free any longer.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 480
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/11/2011 11:36:12 AM
If anything, it's easier to see how those things are part of interstate commerce than an insurance policy is. I don't see how a country where that passed for the rule of law could seriously claim to be free any longer.


Sounds like the tea party? Those rat **stards.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 481
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/11/2011 5:20:55 PM
Thanks for that excellent clarifying post, match. While I still think that we WILL have to go to some sort of socialized-TYPE of health coverage in order to compete with the rest of the world who already has gone that way (just as we had to lower wages, reduce benefits, and do other things to compete), I actually agree with pretty much everything you said. I apologize for missing before, that you weren't opposing the societal sharing of health care costs, so much as the legally incorrect manner (not to mention clumsy and expensive) way they had gone about it.

Including that the Democrats did health care entirely wrong. I only hope we can get something out of the GOP when they take over again (in addition to cancelling the Democrats mess), OTHER than their last offering: nothing.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 482
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/11/2011 5:58:17 PM

just as we had to lower wages, reduce benefits, and do other things to compete


It is the service unions that must give here. They must reduce benefits or very little else will ever matter.

And keep everyones pet projects out of social security money.

It's not impossible. If you look at things from a reasonable point of view you see that those leading are the ones not being reasonable. Why? What is the obvious gain that I am missing here. It can't be for re-election.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 483
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/11/2011 6:20:41 PM
Gore tried to win an election on the platform of protecting social security. Didn't work out so well for him.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 484
view profile
History
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/11/2011 8:03:42 PM

you weren't opposing the societal sharing of health care costs, so much as the legally incorrect manner


I didn't bring up the Obamacare law to go off topic, but to give an example of how federal social programs, call them socialist or something else, tend to be at odds with individual liberties. They can only work by taking certain economic decisions out of the hands of the individual and giving government the power to make them. In this case, a good-sized part of the U.S. economy is involved.

Centralizing parts of a country's economy doesn't necessarily lead to centralizing all of it, which creates a "totalitarian" government. But it may. Once government's authority to make some economic decisions for people is recognized as legitimate in principle, there's no good reason why letting it make more decisions for them should make its authority less legitimate. Applying this to the U.S., once we cut free from the Constitution, what rule do we go by in deciding where to stop?

The essential feature of Obamacare is a *mandate*--everyone must enter into a government-approved contract with an insurance company. Even if this were the wisest, kindest, most beneficial program ever devised, I don't think it would justify giving the federal government power to make us all buy some things, and to forbid us to buy others--or suffer the consequences.

The government's defense of the individual mandate relies a lot on two Supreme Court decisions, one from 1942 and the other from 2005. They both interpret Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce as *very* far-reaching. Whether the Court will stretch them even further to justify the Obamacare law, we will see.

In the 2005 case, Justice Thomas dissented. Here's a little of what he said:

"This Court has never held that Congress can regulate noneconomic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. To evade even that modest restriction on federal power, the majority defines economic activity in the broadest possible terms as the " 'the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.' " This carves out a vast swath of activities that are subject to federal regulation. If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."
 SoBayNative
Joined: 10/30/2011
Msg: 485
Why are Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/13/2011 8:38:58 AM
You've never lived under a socialist government. You've never actually talked to a socialist. But somehow you "know" what socialism is. Instead of listening to people who aren't socialists, why don't you listen to socialists about what socialism is and isn't? You see, when you say, "NOBODY would agree with them," that includes socialists. You don't get to make up the arguments you will fight against - you have to actually engage with real ideas.

I lived under a Socialist government for a year in a tiny European country. They had/have one of the highest suicide rates in Europe and they drink like I've never seen people drink-huge problem. I often see the country listed as one of the "happiest" in Europe and shake my head. They had an influx of Middle Eastern and Muslim immigrants to their blonde paradise and they're going crazy from it. A lot of seething undercurrents of hatred. They have stories of WWII for public consumption of how they hated the Nazis but in reality when you live there and learn the real history they collaborated. They're angry, hateful people whose Socialism can't stand the strain of immigration and they're veering off again in Neo-Nazi territory (i.e. political parties) and violence. Socialism is a nice idea but it doesn't work for large populations like the US.
 professora
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 486
view profile
History
Dear Gaz-- Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/14/2011 6:52:24 PM
Tell me ONE socialistic society that has been successful over the long haul? (decades for example).

:)
 Ms Cheevious
Joined: 12/8/2008
Msg: 487
view profile
History
Dear Gaz-- Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/14/2011 7:22:06 PM
Hope this helps -

ECONOMIC MODELS USING COWS -

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute adebt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows.
No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows.
None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows
.You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the sh*t out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of Democracy....

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 488
Dear Gaz-- Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/14/2011 7:29:13 PM

Tell me ONE socialistic society that has been successful over the long haul? (decades for example).

There's actually only been one country where a socialist party has won reelection over successive decades: Sweden from the early 30's to the mid 70's. During that time the corporations that would become Ikea, Volvo, and Saab were founded, incubated and went on to compete on the world stage. They also successfully resisted Nazi efforts to take them over by having a friendly regime in place - unlike their neighbour Norway. This is a fairly small nation without the advantages of a large internal market, and with pretty treachorous terrain. By the mid 70's it also had the highest per capita income in the world.
 SweetLilGTP
Joined: 10/22/2010
Msg: 489
Dear Gaz-- Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/14/2011 7:34:42 PM
Hope this helps -

ECONOMIC MODELS USING COWS -






May I plaguerize this?

 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 490
view profile
History
Dear Gaz-- Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/14/2011 7:37:27 PM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/09/swedish-elections.html


The anti-immigration party's success came as a shock to some Swedes, who generally pride themselves in being progressive and tolerant. Susanne Lindeskog of Malmo, Sweden, told the BBC it was "frightening" that so many Swedes voted for the Sweden Democrats.


It is impossible to find an example that will not find flaws... Regardless of the viewpoint you are looking for. It's not a fair question.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 491
view profile
History
Dear Gaz-- Americans so Anti Socialist?
Posted: 11/14/2011 10:23:19 PM

Israel? 0r are we stil not allowed to use Israel in any discussions where Americans may be present?


Why, do you have something against them?

Anway, the question is not fair. Someone somewhere can poke holes in everything.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/32626/ann-crittenden/israel-and-the-arabs-israels-economic-plight.


A brief rundown of Israel's current economic problems highlights the seriousness of the situation. Prices are rising faster than almost anywhere in the world, by almost 50 percent last year and by more this year. The balance-of-payments deficit in 1978 was $3.25 billion, equal to almost one-fourth of the country's gross national product. The government budget last year was almost as large as the national output; in the previous year it was actually bigger, meaning that in both years funds from abroad were necessary to cover the government's commitments.


It is the fundamental difference between right and left
As good a definition as any: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

The main factor dividing left and right in Western Europe is class. Those on the Left seek social justice through redistributive social and economic intervention by the state. Those on the Right defend private property and capitalism
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >