Sign in to follow this  
JakeHolman

SOCIALISM, MARXISM, FEMINISM, ANTI-SEMITISM, WAR, RACISM & INFANTICIDE = RADICALS & WACKOS DEMOCRAT PARTY ...

4,052 posts in this topic

7 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

Denmark has socialism and yet the Danes are among the happiest people on earth. Don't you think where Venezuela failed was having cronyism at high levels for so long? Most of Europe follows a democratic socialist model and looks nothing like Venezuela. Now I admit, things might change if the United States hadn't been protecting Europe with our military might since the end of WWII, because then they would have to find the money for defense.

How much does it depend on the character of the people (as well as the leaders) in a nation if an economic system is successful or fails, as it relates to measures like GNP,  income distribution and other economic 'happiness' measures. 

The overall character of the people and their leaders is related to the abuse of government funded assistance programs and the scope of these safety-nets.     E.g. more likely to commit fraud,  be lazy, cronyism, etc..

In addition do certain systems drive such negative (unsocial) behavior?    A common point from capitalist is that socialism does increase unsocial behavior.    But if that is the case there should be data from countries like Denmark that would show, for example,  an increase of younger able-body folks not working and just living off the state.

    

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

How much does it depend on the character of the people (as well as the leaders) in a nation if an economic system is successful or fails, as it relates to measures like GNP,  income distribution and other economic 'happiness' measures. 

The overall character of the people and their leaders is related to the abuse of government funded assistance programs and the scope of these safety-nets.     E.g. more likely to commit fraud,  be lazy, cronyism, etc..

In addition do certain systems drive such negative (unsocial) behavior?    A common point from capitalist is that socialism does increase unsocial behavior.    But if that is the case there should be data from countries like Denmark that would show, for example,  an increase of younger able-body folks not working and just living off the state.

    

 

 

Here in the U.S. a big problem is consolidation of industries into monopolies. For example, my aunt's funeral last year cost 25K and it was nothing to write home about. 20 years ago the cost of a funeral was 5K. Why the inflation? Because only a few big corporations own the funeral industry and just keep the old local name to make it look like you are dealing with a home town industry. Meanwhile, a few corporations set the price and the trajectory on that price is always up. My locally owned and operated pest control company that I have dealt with for 20 years still has its name, but Rollins bought it in 2014. Now suddenly everything is much more expensive. Same story.  Everyone has heard about bank consolidation so that Too Big To Fail has become Much Too Big To Fail, but it is going on in all industries. I don't know whatever happened to AT&T buying Time Warner, or if it already happened, but there you have the means of distribution owning what it distributes. Once upon a time government stood in the way of monopolies, but now they do nothing because these are the biggest campaign contributors around. This is our true cronyism - not a few poor people who might be gaming the system. That's just something put out for you to focus upon so you do not notice these monopolies growing in strength all around you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

How much does it depend on the character of the people (as well as the leaders) in a nation if an economic system is successful or fails, as it relates to measures like GNP,  income distribution and other economic 'happiness' measures. 

The overall character of the people and their leaders is related to the abuse of government funded assistance programs and the scope of these safety-nets.     E.g. more likely to commit fraud,  be lazy, cronyism, etc..

In addition do certain systems drive such negative (unsocial) behavior?    A common point from capitalist is that socialism does increase unsocial behavior.    But if that is the case there should be data from countries like Denmark that would show, for example,  an increase of younger able-body folks not working and just living off the state.

    

 

 

Well theoretically Socialism isn't just "lazy people get paid more" like conservatives like to strawman it. It's just the tools of one's labor being group owned and profits being distributed equally without the company owner middle man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Well theoretically Socialism isn't just "lazy people get paid more" like conservatives like to strawman it. It's just the tools of one's labor being group owned and profits being distributed equally without the company owner middle man.

When profits are distributed equally that could lead to an overall lower level of productively.   E.g. why should someone work harder (produce more) than the 'average' if nothing can be gained (like more money),  by doing so? 

This relates to my chicken\egg questions related to if an economic system drives (leads to) some negative behaviors or the overall character of the people isn't impacted much by an economic system but instead when an economic system fails it isn't so much the system but instead a mismatch between the character of the people and the economic system.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

When profits are distributed equally that could lead to an overall lower level of productively.   E.g. why should someone work harder (produce more) than the 'average' if nothing can be gained (like more money),  by doing so? 

This relates to my chicken\egg questions related to if an economic system drives (leads to) some negative behaviors or the overall character of the people isn't impacted much by an economic system but instead when an economic system fails it isn't so much the system but instead a mismatch between the character of the people and the economic system.     

 

I actually think it's the opposite. The economic system and zeitgest influence the national character far more than vice-versa. You can see this in the differences between anglo countries like US, Canada, Australia, UK, etc. Despite having common origins their economies and cultures diverged enough to build dissimilar national characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not the place of the federal government to dictate a country's national character but the people by a majority of the popular opinions they hold either secular or theologically-based.

and is any country's national character a collective mentality like the secular beehive?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

it's not the place of the federal government to dictate a country's national character but the people by a majority of the popular opinions they hold either secular or theologically-based.

and is any country's national character a collective mentality like the secular beehive?

:)

Very true!

orwell-quotes13.pngquote-the-importance-of-the-culture-indu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

I actually think it's the opposite. The economic system and zeitgest influence the national character far more than vice-versa. You can see this in the differences between anglo countries like US, Canada, Australia, UK, etc. Despite having common origins their economies and cultures diverged enough to build dissimilar national characters.

Note I said,  chicken \ egg,   I didn't say which came first.    (therefore there is no 'think it's the opposite').

I don't have a well defined opinion as to what drives what.

Anyhow,   if it is what you say,  why is Denmark so successful and Venezuela not? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Note I said,  chicken \ egg,   I didn't say which came first.    (therefore there is no 'think it's the opposite').

I don't have a well defined opinion as to what drives what.

Anyhow,   if it is what you say,  why is Denmark so successful and Venezuela not? 

 

Denmark isn't targeted like Venezuela is. Read the Zizek quote I posted earlier in the thread. Politicians on Fox News outright admitted they economically targeted Venezuela so they would revolt and put in a more US friendly regime. The one about "making their economy scream" and how it had worked in Chile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Denmark isn't targeted like Venezuela is. Read the Zizek quote I posted earlier in the thread. Politicians on Fox News outright admitted they economically targeted Venezuela so they would revolt and put in a more US friendly regime. The one about "making their economy scream" and how it had worked in Chile.

I don't think Denmark has a history of colonialism. Nor, do I think that Denmark has had to deal with imperialism.

What little I know about Venezuela, I believe they had an indigenous population as well as black slavery within a racist Colonial system.

Denmark may have had a bad snap in World War II, like most of Europe, but it's not as though  Colonial strife or being a target of imperialism is foundational in their DNA.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us