NationStates Jolt Archive

It was a long time since the eighties, when the gigantic socialist network in America seemed to come apart. Ever since, however, some elements are trying to make a comeback.
I'm not saying that everything is wrong with the US government. There are some wonderful things happening, especially with trade and foreign policy. But there is quite a bit to complain about. The Medicare proposal cheated consumers by fixing prices of prescription drugs, and putting unheard of limits on the pharmecuetical industry. The FCC has come back with a vengeance. The Social Security proposal, modest as it was, is dying. Then there are calls to increase the funding of Medicaid. And of course, there is the ever bigger NASA, that Amtrak no one wants to kill, and the useless farm subsidies that seem to get bigger and bigger by the year.
Over the past year, what I feared may happen in a few years has started happening. The Democrats, refusing to give up their unpopular ideaology, are drifting further and further left, as they are getting smaller and smaller. The Republicans are divided into camps that may become as raucuos as the Democrat's division of Johnson's era. Several Republican senators, like Chuck Hagel, Bill Frist, and John McCain, are so close to being liberal that it is not even funny. This all leads me to ask one question: where is Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when you need them?

This looks like a job for libertarian man!
http://www.attackcartoons.com/lmobjectiv.GIF

Is this a rant or is it supposed to be taken seriously?

This looks like a job for libertarian man!
http://www.attackcartoons.com/lmobjectiv.GIF
But I am not really a liberatarian. Liberatarians seem to dispise the idea that the US needs a foreign policy.

Is this a rant or is it supposed to be taken seriously?
A bit of both.

But I am not really a liberatarian. Liberatarians seem to dispise the idea that the US needs a foreign policy.
Yes, yes we do

This all leads me to ask one question: where is Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when you need them?

Dead and buried* - like their policies.



*(Almost, Thatcher... almost...)

liberal foreign policy - accept blame for everything. Give the rest of the world money. let the world pass America's ass areound like a prison bitch.

liberal foreign policy - accept blame for everything. Give the rest of the world money. let the world pass America's ass areound like a prison bitch.

As opposed to conservative policy: Blame everything on terrorists, including domestic problems. Bomb dirt poor, defenseless countries to rob their mineral wealth, all the while alienating America's closest allies.

Dead and buried* - like their policies.



*(Almost, Thatcher... almost...)

Damn shame, too. If only we had Reagan...if only we had Reagan...

Oh, and Bill frist and John McCain are moderates, they're really nowhere near being liberal.

But I see what you're saying. We do have some problems.

Damn shame, too. If only we had Reagan...if only we had Reagan...

Yes, because Reagan's policies of generating huge deficits are just what the US needs right now.

As opposed to conservative policy: Blame everything on terrorists, including domestic problems. Bomb dirt poor, defenseless countries to rob their mineral wealth, all the while alienating America's closest allies.

Heh, you'd think that if the war really was for oil, you'd see a drop in gas prices. Not sure about where you live, but I'm not seeing it here. And nobody has ever blamed our domestic problems on terrorists. It is true though, that September 11th fucked our economy in the ass.

As opposed to conservative policy: Blame everything on terrorists, including domestic problems. Bomb dirt poor, defenseless countries to rob their mineral wealth, all the while alienating America's closest allies.
As opposed to a libertarian policy: Screw the world, it's none of our business anyways, only countries on their own can sort things out

Yes, because Reagan's policies of generating huge deficits are just what the US needs right now.

I wasn't necessarily talking about economic policies, I was talking about foreign and domestic policies. It goes hand in hand; Republicans have bad domestic and economic policies; Democrats have terrible foreign policies. It's a lose-lose situation, here.

This looks like a job for libertarian man!
http://www.attackcartoons.com/lmobjectiv.GIF

Super-power for President!!!!

This all leads me to ask one question: where is Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when you need them?

Contrary to what Republicruds would have you believe, Reagan did not walk on water. He is one of history's greatest frauds. Read all about him in The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt-Thomson, Here's the Rest of Him and Counterfeit Conservative by Kent Steffgen, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony Sutton, The Insiders by John McManus, The Ronald Reagan Kit (click here (http://www.stangbooks.com/special_offers.htm)), and this article (http://www.etherzone.com/2004/stang061104.shtml), which lists sources- lots of them.

Yes, because Reagan's policies of generating huge deficits are just what the US needs right now.

Sure is! In fact, we should just go for world record on biggest deficiet ever! We need to get it to such a number, no other nation would dare try to beat us!

The US is hardly socialist. It's not even close. When workers own and manage the means of production and poverty is abolished, then you'll know that it's socialist. For now, it is impossible to seriously claim it is socialist.

The US is hardly socialist. It's not even close. When workers own and manage the means of production and poverty is abolished, then you'll know that it's socialist. For now, it is impossible to seriously claim it is socialist.

Federal Reserve, income tax, FDA, Social Security, business regulations, IRS, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, Department of Labor, Department of Education, social welfare, need I continue...

Federal Reserve, income tax, FDA, Social Security, business regulations, IRS, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, Department of Labor, Department of Education, social welfare, need I continue...

That's nothing compared to, say, Sweden (which technically isn't socialist, either, but is far closer to socialism). That pales in comparison to the amount of capitalist-owned institutions such as:

restarauts, hospitals, petstores, theatres, farms, factories, pharmacies, grocery stores, supermarkets, bookstores, electronics stores, video rental places, computer repair services, satellite and cable companies, car/fire/life insurance companies, software companies such as the near monopoly Microsoft as well as Apple, IBM, Lucasarts, and EA games, beer companies, publishing companies, mining companies, companies that make just about every beverage you drink, credit card companies, the entire diet industry, need I continue...

Wait a second, Roach-Busters... you're claiming that the United States government is socialist (now there's a joke for you!) because the USA actually has government institutions? You're just pushing a libertarian agenda here! You radical rascal, you!

Wait a second, Roach-Busters... you're claiming that the United States government is socialist (now there's a joke for you!) because the USA actually has government institutions? You're just pushing a libertarian agenda here! You radical rascal, you!

No, it's not socialist, but it isn't quite capitalist, either.

That's nothing compared to, say, Sweden (which technically isn't socialist, either, but is far closer to socialism). That pales in comparison to the amount of capitalist-owned institutions such as:

restarauts, hospitals, petstores, theatres, farms, factories, pharmacies, grocery stores, supermarkets, bookstores, electronics stores, video rental places, computer repair services, satellite companies, insurance companies, software companies, beer companies, publishing companies, mining companies, companies that make just about every beverage you drink, credit card companies, the entire diet industry, need I continue...

That still doesn't make us capitalist. A true capitalist country would have no social or corporate welfare, no tariffs, no business regulations, no minimum wage, laissez faire economic policies, etc.

Originally posted by Roach-Busters
That still doesn't make us capitalist. A true capitalist country would have no social or corporate welfare, no tariffs, no business regulations, no minimum wage, laissez faire economic policies, etc.

So basically u mean anarchy.

So basically u mean anarchy.

Hardly, anarchism is a form of socialism.

That still doesn't make us capitalist. A true capitalist country would have no social or corporate welfare, no tariffs, no business regulations, no minimum wage, laissez faire economic policies, etc.

In that case, a true socialist country would have no markets, no money, no government, no institutional hierarchy, everything owned and managed by worker councils, etc. Obviously, no country has existed with those characteristics yet, so does that mean there have never been any socialist countries?

You are defining capitalism too narrowly. Capitalism needs government intervention to enforce property laws. Unless you subscribe to "anarcho"-capitalism (which you obviously don't), you are for at least some government intervention in the economy.

Hardly, anarchism is a form of socialism.



In that case, a true socialist country would have no markets, no money, no government, no institutional hierarchy, everything owned and managed by worker councils, etc. Obviously, no country has existed with those characteristics yet, so does that mean there have never been any socialist countries?

You are defining capitalism too narrowly. Capitalism needs government intervention to enforce property laws. Unless you subscribe to "anarcho"-capitalism (which you obviously don't), you are for at least some government intervention in the economy.

I am for no government intervention in the economy.

So basically u mean anarchy.

No, I'm not an anarchist. I believe we should have some government, but the government's main role should be preserving law and order.

Originally posted by Roach-Busters
No, I'm not an anarchist. I believe we should have some government, but the government's main role should be preserving law and order.

But someone has to look after the poor and old, and fund the schools.
You can't trust private citizens to do that they'd end up exploiting them for profit.

But someone has to look after the poor and old, and fund the schools.
You can't trust private citizens to do that they'd end up exploiting them for profit.

If state and local governments want to do so, they can (although I'd prefer they didn't). But federal involvement in those things is a no-no.

Originally posted by Roach-Busters
If state and local governments want to do so, they can (although I'd prefer they didn't). But federal involvement in those things is a no-no.

If the government doesn't, who will?

I am for no government intervention in the economy.

Then who will enforce property laws?

Originally posted by Roach-Busters
I am for no government intervention in the economy.

If there was no gov. intervention in the economy, monoplies would control
America and working conditions would be horrible.

even hinting that america is even the slightest teeniest tiniest bit socialist is a slappable offense over here in merrie olde englande (and rightly so)

Super-power for President!!!!
Quoted in my sig! :D

Contrary to what Republicruds would have you believe, Reagan did not walk on water. He is one of history's greatest frauds. Read all about him in The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt-Thomson, Here's the Rest of Him and Counterfeit Conservative by Kent Steffgen, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony Sutton, The Insiders by John McManus, The Ronald Reagan Kit (click here (http://www.stangbooks.com/special_offers.htm)), and this article (http://www.etherzone.com/2004/stang061104.shtml), which lists sources- lots of them.
I don't want to turn this into a debate about Reagan, but there were several things that he did. He helped to dismantle the socialist framework of fifty years. He was instrumental in cutting taxes and liberalizing large sections of the economy. Finally, he was catalyst for America's wave of liberalization at the time. He wasn't perfect, but he was one of the better presidents.

That's nothing compared to, say, Sweden (which technically isn't socialist, either, but is far closer to socialism). That pales in comparison to the amount of capitalist-owned institutions such as:

restarauts, hospitals, petstores, theatres, farms, factories, pharmacies, grocery stores, supermarkets, bookstores, electronics stores, video rental places, computer repair services, satellite and cable companies, car/fire/life insurance companies, software companies such as the near monopoly Microsoft as well as Apple, IBM, Lucasarts, and EA games, beer companies, publishing companies, mining companies, companies that make just about every beverage you drink, credit card companies, the entire diet industry, need I continue...
Oh, not everything in the US is socialist. We've come a long way since the 1960s, when American socialism peaked. But elements still exist, like regulated trade (thankfully becoming extinct), subsidies to various industries, environmental regulation, welfare, medicare, and a host of others.

That still doesn't make us capitalist. A true capitalist country would have no social or corporate welfare, no tariffs, no business regulations, no minimum wage, laissez faire economic policies, etc.

actually that would be a lassie faire capitalist economy.. there is an inbetween you realize.. having high levels of privitaization and independeces while still maintaining regulatory instutions...

This all leads me to ask one question: where is Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when you need them?
damn Thatcher. damn essays too, i could go on for hours on this if i didn't have them to do....

damn Thatcher. damn essays too, i could go on for hours on this if i didn't have them to do....
Thatcher was great in the fact that she saved Europe from itself: a defeatest, empty, souless pile of poop after WWII that was steadily drifting towards the Warsaw Pact.

It was a long time since the eighties, when the gigantic socialist network in America seemed to come apart. Ever since, however, some elements are trying to make a comeback.
I'm not saying that everything is wrong with the US government. There are some wonderful things happening, especially with trade and foreign policy. But there is quite a bit to complain about. The Medicare proposal cheated consumers by fixing prices of prescription drugs, and putting unheard of limits on the pharmecuetical industry. The FCC has come back with a vengeance. The Social Security proposal, modest as it was, is dying. Then there are calls to increase the funding of Medicaid. And of course, there is the ever bigger NASA, that Amtrak no one wants to kill, and the useless farm subsidies that seem to get bigger and bigger by the year.
Over the past year, what I feared may happen in a few years has started happening. The Democrats, refusing to give up their unpopular ideaology, are drifting further and further left, as they are getting smaller and smaller. The Republicans are divided into camps that may become as raucuos as the Democrat's division of Johnson's era. Several Republican senators, like Chuck Hagel, Bill Frist, and John McCain, are so close to being liberal that it is not even funny. This all leads me to ask one question: where is Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when you need them?

are you really serious "wonderful things happening in foregin policy and trade policy" ?????? now.. foregin policy ill give you is doing quite well.. but TRADE POLICY ?? tell me one thing that is going right in our trade policy.. between NAFTA and all the independed free trade agreements we've made with countries like China, we are giving away our base jobs now even in our tech and services industry (of which our economy is SUPPOSE to be based upon) while inspiring almost ZERO exports. All these free trade agreements have done is made US bigger consumers buying up everything while selling nothing. That is why our trade deficit is where it is today... our Trade policy is our BIGGEST problem.. and I garantee you within the next 4 years its going to under go a massive overhaul if current senate/congressional activity is any indicator

As opposed to conservative policy: Blame everything on terrorists, including domestic problems. Bomb dirt poor, defenseless countries to rob their mineral wealth, all the while alienating America's closest allies.

When our Economy went South after 9/11 the Terrorists didn't have anything to do with that, in YOUR mind?

Rob their mineral wealth, pray tell!

Please show me where we have TAKEN ANYTHING?!?!

If we were to have used the money we spent LIBERATING an OPPRESSED Country on Oil rather than the Liberation we would ACTUALLY have gotten some Oil for the money...

And I believe our "closest Allies" are fighting right beside us in Iraq.

Regards,
Gaar

actually that would be a lassie faire capitalist economy.. there is an inbetween you realize.. having high levels of privitaization and independeces while still maintaining regulatory instutions...
I personally realize that. Some regulation is needed, especially resources that are inherently shared, like river water. River water moves natually, so the government needs to regulate what happens upstream. Besides, the government needs to protect physical well-being, and the FDA needs to exist. But not much else should be regulated.

But someone has to look after the poor and old, and fund the schools.
You can't trust private citizens to do that they'd end up exploiting them for profit.

You can't trust people to do anything these days. Let the government manage people's lives. What they eat (since people may eat unhealthy foods), where they go (they may travel to unsafe places), what they watch (it may corrupt them), and so forth.

Regulation of trade is hardly becomming exinct.. infact i suggest there will be a massive resurgence esspecially after the new statistics comming out after the expiration of texitile export restricitons on china have been lifted globally... The fact of the matter is.. as long as countries are going to be waging unfair trade policies like china manipulating its currency the only right thing to do is to impose tariffs... Thankfully it wont be long before tarriffs are atleast imposed to control them

Yes, because Reagan's policies of generating huge deficits are just what the US needs right now.

Nice to see you have such a "grasp" of Reagans Policies...

You care to explain the "Economic Growth" of our Nation under Reagan, if his Policies were so harmful?

Seems his Policies of giving money BACK to the Taxpayers have afforded us the opportunity to be the most Charitable Nation on Earth, something about that YOU don't like?

Regards,
Gaar

Thatcher was great in the fact that she saved Europe from itself: a defeatest, empty, souless pile of poop after WWII that was steadily drifting towards the Warsaw Pact.
after WW2? :confused: A lot happened in European integration between WW2 and Thatcher you know

my personal opinion is we need more political integration, and Thatcher was unfortunatley one of the main opponents of EPU. but this isn't just about Europe, as what she did to the UK was worse

are you really serious "wonderful things happening in foregin policy and trade policy" ?????? now.. foregin policy ill give you is doing quite well.. but TRADE POLICY ?? tell me one thing that is going right in our trade policy.. between NAFTA and all the independed free trade agreements we've made with countries like China, we are giving away our base jobs now even in our tech and services industry (of which our economy is SUPPOSE to be based upon) while inspiring almost ZERO exports. All these free trade agreements have done is made US bigger consumers buying up everything while selling nothing. That is why our trade deficit is where it is today... our Trade policy is our BIGGEST problem.. and I garantee you within the next 4 years its going to under go a massive overhaul if current senate/congressional activity is any indicator
The US economy is not weakening because it is loosing manufacturing jobs. It is changing to a more service-based economy. Just fifty years ago, only the very rich and the very intelligent went to college. Now, everyone does. And no one works in factories, but in corporate offices as accountants, sales reps, etc, or as professionals. Jobs are being created the fastest in the services sector. It is nearly as momentous as the industrial revolution, but far less understood.

When our Economy went South after 9/11 the Terrorists didn't have anything to do with that, in YOUR mind?

Rob their mineral wealth, pray tell!

Please show me where we have TAKEN ANYTHING?!?!

If we were to have used the money we spent LIBERATING an OPPRESSED Country on Oil rather than the Liberation we would ACTUALLY have gotten some Oil for the money...

And I believe our "closest Allies" are fighting right beside us in Iraq.

Regards,
Gaar

besides the fact that if it were a war for oil.. we as a nation wouldn't nearly be as concerned about paying 55 dollars a barrel i belive it is now.. ? Why exactly are we paying such outragous astronomical prices for oil to people who we do not support (OPEC) and are activily working against if we took over Iraq for the oil ????

The US economy is not weakening because it is loosing manufacturing jobs. It is changing to a more service-based economy. Just fifty years ago, only the very rich and the very intelligent went to college. Now, everyone does. And no one works in factories, but in corporate offices as accountants, sales reps, etc, or as professionals. Jobs are being created the fastest in the services sector. It is nearly as momentous as the industrial revolution, but far less understood.

now see.. that would be a credible argument were it not for the statisical reality that the US is as well loosing a great majority of its service and techonolgy based jobs as well, now we rank i belive it is 13th in the worlds service and techonolgy industries. Your argument is about 5 years old...

I know.. that was the argument i used when i supported NAFTA.. now the realities of that trade policy have significally swayed my support

after WW2? :confused: A lot happened in European integration between WW2 and Thatcher you know

my personal opinion is we need more political integration, and Thatcher was unfortunatley one of the main opponents of EPU. but this isn't just about Europe, as what she did to the UK was worse
The EC was created in the fifties, but it was not the driving vehicle that it was until the nineties. Europeans saw themselves more French or German than European up until the 1990s.
What I was reffering to was that she started the wave of economic liberalism that helped to rescue a bright young generation of Europeans from a world of no hope and stagnation. I trust that you were one of them.

besides the fact that if it were a war for oil.. we as a nation wouldn't nearly be as concerned about paying 55 dollars a barrel i belive it is now.. ? Why exactly are we paying such outragous astronomical prices for oil to people who we do not support (OPEC) and are activily working against if we took over Iraq for the oil ????

We won't be for much longer...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

It's only a matter of time now.

Regards,
Gaar

now see.. that would be a credible argument were it not for the statisical reality that the US is as well loosing a great majority of its service and techonolgy based jobs as well, now we rank i belive it is 13th in the worlds service and techonolgy industries. Your argument is about 5 years old...

I know.. that was the argument i used when i supported NAFTA.. now the realities of that trade policy have significally swayed my support
We rank there because there were always countries that had a greater proportion of their workforce in services, like the Netherlands, or several oil states. They have historically had most of their workers in services. In monetary value, the US is #1 in that field.

now see.. that would be a credible argument were it not for the statisical reality that the US is as well loosing a great majority of its service and techonolgy based jobs as well, now we rank i belive it is 13th in the worlds service and techonolgy industries. Your argument is about 5 years old...

I know.. that was the argument i used when i supported NAFTA.. now the realities of that trade policy have significally swayed my support

Hmmmmm...

From THIS YEAR...

http://www.smallbusinesses.blogspot.com/2005/02/more-about-growth-of-service.html

Sunday, February 27, 2005



More About the Growth of Service Industries



Recently I pointed out that service industries have outpaced goods-producing industries. The vast majority of jobs in the United States are in service-producing industries -- about 80%.

Here's more about the growth of service industries. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 10 fastest growing industries in the United States are all service industries. Go to this page for the industries expected to have the fastest growth rates through the year 2012.

Five of the 10 fastest growing are information services. Four of them are health-care services. The remaining one is a public works service (water and sewer systems).

Here is another chart with a macro view of service industries growing over the next seven years, while goods-producing industries decline.

Does this surprise you?

I don't see what's so great about poor people starving and rich people getting even more money, personally.

I don't see what's so great about poor people starving and rich people getting even more money, personally.
That's only if you believe that there are many starving people in the US. But Hong Kong represents a purer form of capitalism. Look at the poverty figures. If it exists, it is so small that it is undetectable, making Hong Kong's poverty at <1%. Take a look.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/hk.html

We rank there because there were always countries that had a greater proportion of their workforce in services, like the Netherlands, or several oil states. They have historically had most of their workers in services. In monetary value, the US is #1 in that field.

Well if you track much of the outsourcing trend, you will largely see much of the services industry is very vonerable to outsourcing it self... Show me just one bit of statisical evidence to support your position, becuase from all of the studies I have read this simply is not the case..

Dont forget, America basicaly pioneered the telecommuncation industry and we dont even stand in the top 10 world wide. Our services and techonology industry is far weaker then you make it out to be... largely inpart to our trade policies and lack of regulation

Well if you track much of the outsourcing trend, you will largely see much of the services industry is very vonerable to outsourcing it self... Show me just one bit of statisical evidence to support your position, becuase from all of the studies I have read this simply is not the case..

Dont forget, America basicaly pioneered the telecommuncation industry and we dont even stand in the top 10 world wide. Our services and techonology industry is far weaker then you make it out to be... largely inpart to our trade policies and lack of regulation
Urantia II beated me at providing statistics. But really, everyone wants statistics today. Statistics, statistics, statistics. It's as if statistics are the only things that matter.

That's only if you believe that there are many starving people in the US. But Hong Kong represents a purer form of capitalism. Look at the poverty figures. If it exists, it is so small that it is undetectable, making Hong Kong's poverty at <1%. Take a look.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/hk.html

No, Somalia represents purer capitalism.

Urantia II beated me at providing statistics. But really, everyone wants statistics today. Statistics, statistics, statistics. It's as if statistics are the only things that matter.

thats because anyone can make baseless claims.. statistics help give your argument substance

As opposed to conservative policy: Blame everything on terrorists, including domestic problems. Bomb dirt poor, defenseless countries to rob their mineral wealth, all the while alienating America's closest allies.


Steal their mineral wealth??? Where did that come from? I think you are thinking of Britain's colonization of India. Exactly whose mineral wealth has America robbed. You do understand, I hope, that paying for something does not equal robbery.

No, Somalia represents purer capitalism.
That's anarchy. Capitalism cannot and does not work without a strong judicial system to protect individual rights, like property rights and such. In Somolia, if one wants land, just raise an army, and steal it from some weaker farmer by using AK-47s, the weapon of choice for communist and Warsaw Pact nations.

thats because anyone can make baseless claims.. statistics help give your argument substance
I know. But they aren't the only things. No one, for example, appreciates anecdotal evidence, anymore.

The EC was created in the fifties, but it was not the driving vehicle that it was until the nineties. Europeans saw themselves more French or German than European up until the 1990s.
What I was reffering to was that she started the wave of economic liberalism that helped to rescue a bright young generation of Europeans from a world of no hope and stagnation. I trust that you were one of them.
yeah that is true, our more flexible labour market is an obvious advantage Britain has over other European nations, and is Thatcher's only redeeming act imo

as for the rest of here 'liberal economic policies', i don't like em.

That's anarchy. Capitalism cannot and does not work without a strong judicial system to protect individual rights, like property rights and such. In Somolia, if one wants land, just raise an army, and steal it from some weaker farmer by using AK-47s, the weapon of choice for communist and Warsaw Pact nations.

No, it's capitalism. Visit Somalia, pay your way past various check points. You can get most things IF you can pay. You pay for protection, weapons, water, electricity. You can only raise an army by paying them = capitalism!

Well if you track much of the outsourcing trend, you will largely see much of the services industry is very vonerable to outsourcing it self... Show me just one bit of statisical evidence to support your position, becuase from all of the studies I have read this simply is not the case..


Really!?!?!

Because a good portion of our Service Industry actually supplies "face-to-face" Services; which are going to be just a bit difficult to "outsource"...

:D

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, because Reagan's policies of generating huge deficits are just what the US needs right now.

Uhm, that was congress. A Democratic congress that wouldn't pass his military spending unless it included their various pet projects also.

Or maybe you think the world would have been better off if he didnt engage in an arms race with the USSR, forcing them them to reform much earlier than they would have otherwise.

yeah that is true, our more flexible labour market is an obvious advantage Britain has over other European nations, and is Thatcher's only redeeming act imo

as for the rest of here 'liberal economic policies', i don't like em.
Like her privatization of Britain's national sugar company?

No, it's capitalism. Visit Somalia, pay your way past various check points. You can get most things IF you can pay. You pay for protection, weapons, water, electricity. You can only raise an army by paying them = capitalism!
More of crony capitalism, really. Capitalism needs the government to interfere in legal and military affairs, just to make sure that no human endures physical harm and gets away with it.

Hasn't anyone heard of the 1800s? Obviously not.

Federal Reserve, income tax, FDA, Social Security, business regulations, IRS, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, Department of Labor, Department of Education, social welfare, need I continue...

Well, you should probably add the BATF and DEA if you want to get to the authoritarian side of socialism. Should probably also add in Federal sentencing guidlines. I would also say the patriot act, but it doesnt add much, by way of overbearing govt, since the war on drugs. And lets not forget RICO laws and their disgusting abuse by the govt.

More of crony capitalism, really. Capitalism needs the government to interfere in legal and military affairs, just to make sure that no human endures physical harm and gets away with it.

LOL

No human endures physical harm?

Like the prisoners at Guatanamo?
The iraqis killed by the war?

Pure capitalism is just that - buy anything and everything. Somalia is a perfect example. THAT'S why we need moderation, some socialisation - government health and safety legislation for example. That's not capitalism, that's socialism my friend.

Heh, you'd think that if the war really was for oil, you'd see a drop in gas prices. Not sure about where you live, but I'm not seeing it here. And nobody has ever blamed our domestic problems on terrorists. It is true though, that September 11th fucked our economy in the ass.

Even if the war was for oil, it wouldn't matter. Fact is that OPEC is running out of oil, just like all the previous oil-producing countries.

LOL

No human endures physical harm?

Like the prisoners at Guatanamo?
The iraqis killed by the war?

Pure capitalism is just that - buy anything and everything. Somalia is a perfect example. THAT'S why we need moderation, some socialisation - government health and safety legislation for example. That's not capitalism, that's socialism my friend.
The above mentioned examples were enemies of the US, and they deserve what they got. But for those that do not harm a soul, they should be guranteed all of the full rights of the system. Then again, it is clear that you are trying to discredit capitalism, when what you bring up is not capitalism, but savagery.

The above mentioned examples were enemies of the US, and they deserve what they got. But for those that do not harm a soul, they should be guranteed all of the full rights of the system. Then again, it is clear that you are trying to discredit capitalism, when what you bring up is not capitalism, but savagery.

What's capitalism then, if not freedom to buy what you want?

Were all the civilians killed in Iraq enemies of the US?
What about the Brits you held in guantanamo without trial who were kidnapped by American forces. The moment they got back here, they were released. Know why? No fucking evidence, that's why.

So basically u mean anarchy.

No, because the govt would still enforce contracts, both explicit and implicit. For example, a company that sells a toy that happens to explode for no particular reason would still be in breach of an implicit contract, even if they never said anything about whether it would explode or not. On the other hand, they would not be liable if a person did something stupid with it and something bad happened.

another example:
a company sells coffee laced with rat poison(company feels it gives their coffee a "kick") and people die, well the company is probably in breach of the social contract unless they informed their customers that their coffee has RAT POISON in it.

A company sells coffee that is very hot(so it stays hot when customers actually drink it at their workplace) and somebody burns themselves with it, then the company is probably not in breach of contract.

capitalism

• noun an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Ergo, Somalia, where everything is private, is perfect capitalism.

THAT'S why we need moderation, some socialisation - government health and safety legislation for example. That's not capitalism, that's socialism my friend.

I believe YOU are confusing OUR Economic SYSTEM with OUR Political SYSTEM... One is Capitalism and the other is a Democratic Republic. It helps if you understand the differences.

Health and Safety are soley Socialistic Ideals?

When did that happen?

Regards,
Gaar

Like her privatization of Britain's national sugar company?
and the rest.

...actually i don't really care about the sugar company, but you know what i mean.

I believe YOU are confusing OUR Economic SYSTEM with OUR Political SYSTEM... One is Capitalism and the other is a Democratic Republic. It helps if you understand the differences.

Health and Safety are soley Socialistic Ideals?

When did that happen?

Regards,
Gaar

What is pure capitalism if not everything in private hands?

Really!?!?!

Because a good portion of our Service Industry actually supplies "face-to-face" Services; which are going to be just a bit difficult to "outsource"...

:D

Regards,
Gaar

That depends on the services doesn't it.. many face to face services are now being translated into internet services... ie online banking... (because they are cheaper, faster, more efficent) much of which can be outsoucred to India or china or countless other countries and handled through thrid party companies for "customer care". Its true the "teller" wont become extinct anytime soon, and branches probably wont be closing by the dozen If banks begin to focus on the less expensive internet services and definatly does give a refocusing of the idea of "service industry"

capitalism

• noun an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Ergo, Somalia, where everything is private, is perfect capitalism.

Why do I suspect that you have "enhanced" that definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Why do I suspect that you have "enhanced" that definition?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

I have not 'enhanced' anything, I got that from the oxford fucking dictionary thankyou.

Your system sounds like mine. Pure capitalism would have everything in private hands.

What is pure capitalism if not everything in private hands?

pur capitalism is simply said buisness run with as little or no regulation .. that does not mean the type of corruption you describe for day to day life and governmental/political processes.. even Adam Smith's lassie faire system seperated the ideas of government/governmental services and buisness/economic processes.

pur capitalism is simply said buisness run with as little or no regulation .. that does not mean the type of corruption you describe for day to day life and governmental/political processes.. even Adam Smith's lassie faire system seperated the ideas of government/governmental services and buisness/economic processes.

That's just watered down capitalism where some services AREN'T run by private individuals. Pure capitalism would have everything private. That way people can buy what they want and leave the rest.

That depends on the services doesn't it.. many face to face services are now being translated into internet services... ie online banking... (because they are cheaper, faster, more efficent) much of which can be outsoucred to India or china or countless other countries and handled through thrid party companies for "customer care". Its true the "teller" wont become extinct anytime soon, and branches probably wont be closing by the dozen If banks begin to focus on the less expensive internet services and definatly does give a refocusing of the idea of "service industry"

Hmmmm....

Many? I think you named one, and I am hard pressed to think of another...

Restaurants, Grocery Stores, Malls, Gas Stations, Convenience Stores, Hair Salons, Nail Salons, Message Parlors...

You named one, I think there are many more that won't be able to than will, but I may be wrong.

Regards,
Gaar

No, Somalia represents purer capitalism.

Well, their version more resembles Darwins ideals in the extremes more than it does modern day capitalism.

That's just watered down capitalism where some services AREN'T run by private individuals. Pure capitalism would have everything private. That way people can buy what they want and leave the rest.

Watered down capitalism ? what im speaking of is exactly what Adam smith.. the father of capitalism advocated.. And there is a clear separation between government and capitalism in industry and trade... this is not to say he who pays the police more will receive the protection... because even in Adam Smiths eyes.. the government was not a priviate enterprise to be exploited for desires of profit. But rather simply a relaitiy nessary for law and order in social terms, which had no place in the economic world.

Well, their version more resembles Darwins ideals in the extremes more than it does modern day capitalism.

That's because modern capitalism is tempered with socialist ideals of certain 'public services'. It is only by viewing some things as 'public services' that they are not privatised. But anything can be, and that would be pure capitalism.

I have not 'enhanced' anything, I got that from the oxford fucking dictionary thankyou.

Your system sounds like mine. Pure capitalism would have everything in private hands.

Hmmmm....

Cause MY Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language gives a definition almost identical to the one I posted that has NO REFERENCE to the word "Political", like yours does.

Maybe Oxford needs to revisit their definition?

Regards,
Gaar

Hmmmm....

Cause MY Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language gives a definition almost identic to the one I posted that has NO REFERENCE to the word "Political", like yours does.

Maybe Oxford needs to revisit their definition?

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, because its not like it's ENGLISH or anything.

But you still haven't address any of my other points.

Yeah, because its not like it's ENGLISH or anything.

But you still haven't address any of my other points.

Like I said, YOUR understanding may be helped if you understand the differences between our Economic System and our Political System, something you have yet to demonstrate.

Regards,
Gaar

That's because modern capitalism is tempered with socialist ideals of certain 'public services'. It is only by viewing some things as 'public services' that they are not privatised. But anything can be, and that would be pure capitalism.

You must have missed my post regarding governments and the social contract.

What's capitalism then, if not freedom to buy what you want?

Were all the civilians killed in Iraq enemies of the US?
What about the Brits you held in guantanamo without trial who were kidnapped by American forces. The moment they got back here, they were released. Know why? No fucking evidence, that's why.

Something about Freedom isn't FREE and War is HELL that YOU don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

What precisely are services that can ONLY be provided by the government?

What services are so inherently part of your 'political' system that they are outside the 'economic' system?

There's no hard line, its a blur, that runs all the way to total nationalisation or total privatisiation.

Hmmmm....

Many? I think you named one, and I am hard pressed to think of another...

Restaurants, Grocery Stores, Malls, Gas Stations, Convenience Stores, Hair Salons, Nail Salons, Message Parlors...

You named one, I think there are many more that won't be able to than will, but I may be wrong.

Regards,
Gaar

Human resources, Retail (http://itsolutions.forbes.com/forbes/search/viewabstract/70954/index.jsp), IT services, Engineering services mechanical and electronic, as well as the Financial industries (now even including Accounting of all things once belived to be among the most secure), Health care and pharmisucital industries just to mention a few broad sectors.

Im not saying all service sectors can be effected by things like outsourcing.. but a great many of them (those among the most vital to us being technology) can and are

Originally Posted by Enlightened Humanity

Were all the civilians killed in Iraq enemies of the US?
What about the Brits you held in guantanamo without trial who were kidnapped by American forces. The moment they got back here, they were released. Know why? No fucking evidence, that's why.



Were all the civilians killed in Iraq killed by the US forces ? Even those killed by American forces.. where they all specifically targeted with full knowledge that they were just civilians ?

Kidnapped by American forces ? from where Britian i suppose ? or from Iraq or Afganistan where they were activily engaging American forces.. And arn't new British laws leaning very much in the same way American laws are holding suspects without trial without evidence under "house arrest" for unspecified times ??

Simply said there is a new and growing realiziation that traditional Civil rights allowances are insuffient to protect the general public from the growing threat terrorism poses.

Were all the civilians killed in Iraq killed by the US forces ? Even those killed by American forces.. where they all specifically targeted with full knowledge that they were just civilians ?

Kidnapped by American forces ? from where Britian i suppose ? or from Iraq or Afganistan where they were activily engaging American forces.. And arn't new British laws leaning very much in the same way American laws are holding suspects without trial without evidence under "house arrest" for unspecified times ??

Try kidnapped in Gambia, Pakistan, Zambia

Yeah, the British laws are the same. It's sick.

Human resources, Retail (http://itsolutions.forbes.com/forbes/search/viewabstract/70954/index.jsp), IT services, Engineering services mechanical and electronic, as well as the Financial industries (now even including Accounting of all things once belived to be among the most secure), Health care and pharmisucital industries just to mention a few broad sectors.

Im not saying all service sectors can be effected by things like outsourcing.. but a great many of them (those among the most vital to us being technology) can and are

Yes, yes...

And people like yourself, back in the 80's, were saying that the U.S. wouldn't have an Automobile Industry in the U.S. by the year 2000.

And we see how that worked out.

Regards,
Gaar

What precisely are services that can ONLY be provided by the government?

What services are so inherently part of your 'political' system that they are outside the 'economic' system?

There's no hard line, its a blur, that runs all the way to total nationalisation or total privatisiation.

Civil defence is best undertaken by the government. If it was a private company, another country could hired their army to invade from within...

Highways should be government run, for the most part.

Police should be government funded. Emergency crews could be privatized.

Is this making any sense or did I misinterpret the question?

Yes, yes...

And people like yourself, back in the 80's, were saying that the U.S. wouldn't have an Automobile Industry in the U.S. by the year 2000.

And we see how that worked out.

Regards,
Gaar

we nearly didn't if not for the advent of the SUV which only happend because OPEC eased on Oil prices.. now that gas prices are surging again we call into question things like milage

Civil defence is best undertaken by the government. If it was a private company, another country could hired their army to invade from within...

Highways should be government run, for the most part.

Police should be government funded. Emergency crews could be privatized.

Is this making any sense or did I misinterpret the question?

Civil defence is easily privatised - just look at the role of mercenaries like Janusian Security, Kroll, Control Risks Group, Blackwater etc in Iraq. One short hop to full operations.

Highways that charge to use would be fairer, wouldn't they? And more efficient.

Police could be private, you pay them to take your case, read 'Jennifer government'

Over the past year, what I feared may happen in a few years has started happening. The Democrats, refusing to give up their unpopular ideaology, are drifting further and further left, as they are getting smaller and smaller. The Republicans are divided into camps that may become as raucuos as the Democrat's division of Johnson's era. Several Republican senators, like Chuck Hagel, Bill Frist, and John McCain, are so close to being liberal that it is not even funny.

1. The Democrats in this country are freaking right of center... How can you claim they're drifting left. In this nation all it takes to be liberal is to suggest that some businesses might *gasp* be exploitative of their employees.

2. The republicans of this country are jumped up facists, biggots, and racist fat cats... They are so far right that it isnt even funny.

3. Calling liberalism socialism is sheer tomfoolery. I am a socialist, a democrat is not a socialist, they are a moderate. Its time to accept that lassaise faire is idiocy and move on. It is an outdated ideal supported only by the less than intelligent and the rich. Get over it and stope exploiting your workers.

This all leads me to ask one question: where is Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when you need them?

If I wasn't an atheist I would reply "In hell... Where they belong." Unfortunantly all I can say is. Dead... And good ridance... Bloody Facist pigs...

It seems no-one wants to offer any ideas for what cannot be privatised.

Civil defence is easily privatised - just look at the role of mercenaries like Janusian Security, Kroll, Control Risks Group, Blackwater etc in Iraq. One short hop to full operations.

Highways that charge to use would be fairer, wouldn't they? And more efficient.

Police could be private, you pay them to take your case, read 'Jennifer government'

And that is the wonderful thing about a Democratic Republic, we are not "set" on just one way of doing things, we look at the merits of the different situations and apply the solution we think best suits it...

For instance, we DO HAVE some Hiways that people are charged a "toll" for using, we used such a process here in Seattle back in the early 60's that built us a "Floating Bridge" from Seattle to Bellevue.

So perhaps You could explain how "forcing" us to use just YOUR System would be any better for us than the "System" we are ALREADY USING?!?!

By the way, I think our Sysytem is working just fine, thank you.

Regards,
Gaar

What's capitalism then, if not freedom to buy what you want?
Capitalism is the security of individual rights. That includes, but is not limited to significant economic freedom.
Were all the civilians killed in Iraq enemies of the US?
No. But mistakes happen all the time.
What about the Brits you held in guantanamo without trial who were kidnapped by American forces. The moment they got back here, they were released. Know why? No fucking evidence, that's why.
Maybe. But it was safest to hold him on an island where he was unable to hurt people.

and the rest.

...actually i don't really care about the sugar company, but you know what i mean.
No one cares about the sugar company. But her liberalisation helped move the country into a big power. The thing I can see that was bad was that she started a chain reaction that shut down industry. That wasn't as bad as it may seem. It changed the economy into a service one, one that made more money, was leaner, meaner, and maybe greener. What she forgot to do was reform that education system to meet the times, too.

1. The Democrats in this country are freaking right of center... How can you claim they're drifting left. In this nation all it takes to be liberal is to suggest that some businesses might *gasp* be exploitative of their employees.
They elected Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi to head their party, who are both quite far left. They aren''t quite liike the New Deal type, but they may get there.
2. The republicans of this country are jumped up facists, biggots, and racist fat cats... They are so far right that it isnt even funny.
I consider myself farther right. What does that make me?
3. Calling liberalism socialism is sheer tomfoolery. I am a socialist, a democrat is not a socialist, they are a moderate. Its time to accept that lassaise faire is idiocy and move on. It is an outdated ideal supported only by the less than intelligent and the rich. Get over it and stope exploiting your workers.

I didn't equate the two. Socialism is further left. But it is fair to say that some Democrats are Socialists. Barry Sanders, for example, caucuses in the House with the Democrats, and is a declared socialist. So is Dennis Kucinich.

2. The republicans of this country are jumped up facists, biggots, and racist fat cats... They are so far right that it isnt even funny.

3. Calling liberalism socialism is sheer tomfoolery. I am a socialist, a democrat is not a socialist, they are a moderate. Its time to accept that lassaise faire is idiocy and move on. It is an outdated ideal supported only by the less than intelligent and the rich. Get over it and stope exploiting your workers.
From your point of view, of course. A large portion of the American populace views the democrats as far left. And there are certain members *cough, anne coulter, cough* who think that George Bush is left, so as always, in your own personal opinion...

From your point of view, of course. A large portion of the American populace views the democrats as far left. And there are certain members *cough, anne coulter, cough* who think that George Bush is left, so as always, in your own personal opinion...


I meant in terms of the world. This country is so far right I have to keep from being sick when I hear some of the moderate ideas spewed forth by our so -called "leftist party."

I meant in terms of the world. This country is so far right I have to keep from being sick when I hear some of the moderate ideas spewed forth by our so -called "leftist party."

You have to be kidding me...

If we were "so far right" as YOU put it, we wouldn't have things like "unemployment" and "Social Security" or "Welfare".

We have come so far "Left" since Roosevelts "New Deal" that we forgot what it was to be "Conservative Right-Wing" in this Country!

Regards,
Gaar

I meant in terms of the world. This country is so far right I have to keep from being sick when I hear some of the moderate ideas spewed forth by our so -called "leftist party."

So untrue.

I meant in terms of the world. This country is so far right I have to keep from being sick when I hear some of the moderate ideas spewed forth by our so -called "leftist party."
While we may notice that places such as Europe or Canada are fairly leftist, it must be realized that beyond that, the vast bulk of humanity doesn't care, for whatever reason. For example, the middle east is a fairly authoritarian area (not leftist,) Africa is just poor and AIDS ridden, China's got severe demographic problems occuring, and Russia is...Russia.

Civil defence is easily privatised - just look at the role of mercenaries like Janusian Security, Kroll, Control Risks Group, Blackwater etc in Iraq. One short hop to full operations.

Have we so quickly forgoten the fall of Rome, who themselves fell prey to the privitization of their military.

Highways that charge to use would be fairer, wouldn't they? And more efficient.

In fact they wouldn't... free transport of goods accross boarders is already seen as the more efficent process, if we had to stop and pay every time we changed high ways or streets transport would be ineffective at best.

and how do you define fair ? those with the money to pay can use.. and those without must do without ? is that fairer ? as opposed to free for all ?

Police could be private, you pay them to take your case, read 'Jennifer government'

But then only those with money could afford to have their cases taken to begin with... of course everything could be private if you so wanted it to.. but capitalism was never ment to encompass the relam of civil service or governmental function.. it was meant only to encompass buisness and trade.

I meant in terms of the world. This country is so far right I have to keep from being sick when I hear some of the moderate ideas spewed forth by our so -called "leftist party."

in terms of the world ? Unless you see Europe and Canada as the world.. then yes.. i can see how America might seem far right... However, if you put America and Europe in context of world governments, it is Europe who is largely out of the main stream running mass socialist policies... Africia, Asia, South America, hardly are running the same type of Big government welfare systems Europe and Canada practice... with of course the exception of China, who is so far left they make europe look like Facists

bump

in terms of the world ? Unless you see Europe and Canada as the world.. then yes.. i can see how America might seem far right... However, if you put America and Europe in context of world governments, it is Europe who is largely out of the main stream running mass socialist policies... Africia, Asia, South America, hardly are running the same type of Big government welfare systems Europe and Canada practice... with of course the exception of China, who is so far left they make europe look like Facists

Actually, I think you mean Europe makes them look like Fascists. State-Capitalist regimes arn't ussually viewed as "left."

in terms of the world ? Unless you see Europe and Canada as the world.. then yes.. i can see how America might seem far right... However, if you put America and Europe in context of world governments, it is Europe who is largely out of the main stream running mass socialist policies... Africia, Asia, South America, hardly are running the same type of Big government welfare systems Europe and Canada practice... with of course the exception of China, who is so far left they make europe look like Facists
I think you mean Japan. China may have a pretty big government, but they have made tremendous progress dismantling it. They still have some critical steps they need to take, like privatizing their bank sector, or getting out of big businesses like Lenovo. But they have come a long way since the Cultural Revolution.