Is becoming a Socialist country all that bad?


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have to get this off my chest. Everybody agrees that the economy of the USA is in a mess and that it has affected the entire world. I understand that some very stupid things were done. I do not agree that the money just disappeared into thin air. But that is not the point I want to make with this post.

This is my point. The USA is the world’s largest and most successful capitalist country and our economy is in a horrible mess. According to president Obama it is the worse it has been since the great depression. This is despite the fact that it is a capitalist economy. So we are going to have to borrow some money – lots of money. But with the world economy in shambles where do we go to get money – who has the cash to purchase our debt? Would you believe China? The world’s largest socialist country is the most economical stable country to be able to buy our debt.

If socialism is so rotten – how come China is in the best position during these hard times to purchase our debt - with CASH?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wonder why Obama says the worst since the Depression.....when Reagan took office unemployment was higher than it is today...of course I know Obama can't knock one from his own Party..

Another thing and this is personal....I work at a RV Dealership in St Louis...we had a RV Show this past weekend at the Edward Jones Dome. Our dealership sold 40 new units at that show....our sister Dealership sold 45 new units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Obama says the worst since the Depression.....when Reagan took office unemployment was higher than it is today...of course I know Obama can't knock one from his own Party..

Another thing and this is personal....I work at a RV Dealership in St Louis...we had a RV Show this past weekend at the Edward Jones Dome. Our dealership sold 40 new units at that show....our sister Dealership sold 45 new units.

The Helicopter industry just had their big trade show, it set the record for attendees and had 80 more exhibitors then last year.

What did Chuck D. say? "Don't believe the hype!"

They (Demoncrats) just want us to believe things are worse then they are, so they can "save" us and pass their socialist agenda. Socialism has never fixed anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China may be in a good position, but the Chinese people are not.

I was married to an individual who grew up in Soviet Union. His views on life and morality are very different from God's plan.

He learned and does believe that one needs to lie. That is part of being an adult, he says. Only little children who don't know any better tell the truth. He said that is what he learned growing up in a socialist state. One lies to live.

Although there are some values in a socialist way of life, it becomes all too easily communistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

China may be in a good position, but the Chinese people are not.

I was married to an individual who grew up in Soviet Union. His views on life and morality are very different from God's plan.

He learned and does believe that one needs to lie. That is part of being an adult, he says. Only little children who don't know any better tell the truth. He said that is what he learned growing up in a socialist state. One lies to live.

Although there are some values in a socialist way of life, it becomes all too easily communistic.

An essential difference to point out is the fact that neither China nor the USSR were democracies prior to becoming totalitarian Communist states. Canada and several of the European nations have been crossing the bridge into socialism for some time now without sacrificing their democratic ideals, or their capitalist infrastructures for that matter. I don't think it's outrageous to think that the US could follow that pattern rather than go the route of the more extreme Eastern nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to get this off my chest. Everybody agrees that the economy of the USA is in a mess and that it has affected the entire world. I understand that some very stupid things were done. I do not agree that the money just disappeared into thin air. But that is not the point I want to make with this post.

This is my point. The USA is the world’s largest and most successful capitalist country and our economy is in a horrible mess. According to president Obama it is the worse it has been since the great depression. This is despite the fact that it is a capitalist economy. So we are going to have to borrow some money – lots of money. But with the world economy in shambles where do we go to get money – who has the cash to purchase our debt? Would you believe China? The world’s largest socialist country is the most economical stable country to be able to buy our debt.

If socialism is so rotten – how come China is in the best position during these hard times to purchase our debt - with CASH?

The Traveler

The problem with the U.S. economy has nothing to do with its being capitalist. In fact, our trouble has everything to do with NOT being capitalist. You see, in order to be capitalist you must have capital. The United States has been decapitalizing for a long time.

The money monopoly (the FED) sets artificially low interest rates which causes massive misallocations of resources and labor (bubbles). How does it do that? By setting interest rates so low, savers look to other sources to invest their savings. (There is little point in putting money in a savings account earning .015% when inflation is 5%). Savers look for appreciating assets. Nonsensical trends (bubbles) appear.

Business managers, basing future earnings forecasts on historical data open new locations, invest in new production facilities, hire new employees. When bubbles finally burst, the changes in demand can cause these new business investments to become worthless. Capital investments are liquidated and employees are laid off.

The most recent fiasco was the housing bubble. Rather than save money and capitalize, Americans counted their home equity as their savings. This artificial savings was not available as capital for the purpose of production, this is where the real trouble comes in. Decapitalization lowers production capabilities and thus the standard of living also.

China on the other hand has a tremendous savings rate. The Chinese save and invest (you know, that old-fashioned stuff our grandparents used to do). The have not been induced to borrow in mass by astoundingly low interests rates. They use their savings to capitalize production. This raises the standard of living and produces long-term growth.

The reality? A socialist country (China) is not saving a capitalist country (USA). Rather, a country with capital is lending to one that is very short on capital.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....when Reagan took office unemployment was higher than it is today...

One difference in defining the unemployment rate is that we no longer add in the jobless who have given up any seeking employment at their local job offices. This helps makes the rates lower - truly one example of where padding the numbers is not desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to speak simply, for the part of the Americans here, the United States was founded to free itself from the tyranny of government with too much power. Socialism would give back power to the government, and bit by bit restore us to the tyranny we once sought to free ourselves from. "Social" programs mean government control. I agree with the founding fathers who sought to free us from such a thing. We take for granted now our freedoms and rights, but we will lose them bit by bit by bloating government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

define socialist country? American's describe the UK as socialist because we have social welfare programme, NHS etc For me some social programmes are just sensible, when I see the state of the US I find it difficult, that the worlds wealthiest country has such poverty even in small towns.

Our country has become more captalist as a result brilliant students think twice about university, we do not always get the very best in the positions we need them, students who used to leave with 0 debt are now leaving in 10s of thousands of pounds worth of debt which I can't help but wonder has it contributed to a culture that thinks debt is OK

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

define socialist country? American's describe the UK as socialist because we have social welfare programme, NHS etc For me some social programmes are just sensible, when I see the state of the US I find it difficult, that the worlds wealthiest country has such poverty even in small towns.

This is because the US is not that wealthy any more. The numbers have been strongly overstated. The largest portion of Americans today have no savings at all.

Our country has become more captalist as a result brilliant students think twice about university, we do not always get the very best in the positions we need them, students who used to leave with 0 debt are now leaving in 10s of thousands of pounds worth of debt which I can't help but wonder has it contributed to a culture that thinks debt is OK

-Charley

The movement during the Reagan/Thatcher era was not so much a move toward capitalism, but one toward monetarism. We are now seeing the side effects of monetarism. As much as I am a fan of Milton Friedman, his monetarist theory was simply wrong. The Austrians have that issue right.

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to the United States was founded to free itself from the tyranny of government with too much power. (italics mine)

Hey Mike,

I always cringe a bit at this kind of absolutist language, such as the word "tyranny." Britain did not act any more tyrannical than the American colonies did. It was simply asking its subjects to do what it asked of all its subjects, and the American colonists said no.

But to maintain perspective, it‘s important to understand the colonies said no because England had essentially left the colonies alone, to rule themselves, for at least a century.

England‘s policy of not enforcing its laws in the American colonies is called “salutary neglect,“ or “benign neglect.” From Wiki:

Salutary neglect was a large contributing factor that led to the American Revolutionary War. Since the imperial authority did not assert the power that it had, the colonists were left to govern themselves.

These essentially sovereign colonies soon became accustomed to the idea of self-control. The effects of such prolonged isolation eventually resulted in the emergence of a collective identity that considered itself separate from Great Britain.

In other words, if Britain hadn’t left the colonies alone for such a long time, they probably would never have thought to break from its rule. In fact, the American colonists' decision to do so was actually rather arrogant, and not entirely reasonable.

Salutary neglect is far from tyranny, and the label is rhetoric, not reality.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the biggest issues we have now is our money is over inflated.. our dollar is worth less in the global market then it ever has..

Socialism will only make that worse

As far as the economy goes.. well I am pet groomer by trade... some may say a frivolous profession.. I have been a SAHM for 2 years but my colleagues have seen very little drop in clients.. and some cant keep up with their clients and are turning them away. I am currently making my way back into the grooming world.. and the opportunities are amazing.. I thought I would have a much harder time establishing clientele based on the doom and gloom media.. but I have several offers to choose from.. that ought to tell ya something..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the biggest issues we have now is our money is over inflated.. our dollar is worth less in the global market then it ever has..

Socialism will only make that worse

.

its stronger against the pound than it was in March 2002, it was 1.31 then. I still think socialism needs to be defined here.

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that would even consider being a socialist or wanting to live in a socialist country is incapable of running there own life, they want and need to be taken care of.

What makes me sad is all the men and women thats gaven there lifes for our freedom and some people would give that freedom up without blinking an eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that would even consider being a socialist or wanting to live in a socialist country is incapable of running there own life, they want and need to be taken care of.

What makes me sad is all the men and women thats gaven there lifes for our freedom and some people would give that freedom up without blinking an eye.

please explain to me what freedoms I have lost as a result of having a state that helped out with my university education, kept my daughter alive when she was born early, etc

I came from a background where in the US I would not have had half as many options as I do now, I was able to choose my university course and when I got ill I was given the option to be ill and leave work for a time to recover.

My Grandfather was in WW2 and he was the first to support the NHS, and free university education etc And quite frankly as a result of the nationlised industries like phone, electricity, water etc becoming private, the service is worse, the prices are no cheaper and in the current situation they could be working as not for profit allowing the fuel problems not to bite so badly

I am certainly more free as a result of where I live

-Charley

Edited by Elgama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't lose very much.

But somebody else had to pay for all those perks. Whether they should have been forced to do so on penalty of imprisonment, is my major beef with socialism.

As for utility companies: too often, deregulation/privatization seems to lead to the substitution of private monopolies for public ones. If forced to choose, I'd say a public monopoly (i.e.--egads!--bureaucratic socialism) is preferable. But I still maintain that a truly free and open market is superior to both. While I don't know the specific situation in your neck of the woods, I will venture to guess that you'd be getting much better service if your phone, electricity, and/or water companies genuinely feared losing your (or your city's) business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please explain to me what freedoms I have lost as a result of having a state that helped out with my university education, kept my daughter alive when she was born early, etc

I came from a background where in the US I would not have had half as many options as I do now, I was able to choose my university course and when I got ill I was given the option to be ill and leave work for a time to recover.

My Grandfather was in WW2 and he was the first to support the NHS, and free university education etc And quite frankly as a result of the nationlised industries like phone, electricity, water etc becoming private, the service is worse, the prices are no cheaper and in the current situation they could be working as not for profit allowing the fuel problems not to bite so badly

I am certainly more free as a result of where I live

-Charley

Im sorry but what in the heck are you even talking about. people see freedom in so many different ways and usually it has to do with just them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share