Yeah, cause we're all going to billionaires.

Keeping chasing that dangling carrot. The rich couldn't do it without you.

communistsarestupid: TheRameres:
You planning on telling us?

First steps closer to socialism were made by Bush, most of which were promptly disbanded (to my great pleasure) by Obama. Now Obama is edging towards fascism (in the proper sense of the word, not the retard internet-insult version) while saying he's moving towards socialism.

Bush did not request the resignation of a private company's CEO. Bush is not refusing Bank of America's pleas to pay back the money it was forced to take, money that is presently compounding interest. A 'stimulus' package that exacerbates government spending while having little permanent impact on the economic market that matters (jobs and edumucation) is not stimulus, it is wasteful and it serves an end we should be mindful of.

It's like Rahm said. Never let a perfectly good crisis go to waste.

Nobody was forced to take anything. Just because conservatives say it doesn't make it true. And fascism in the proper sense of the word is government being subservient to corporate interests. The other way around is not. True fascism is corporations demanding a free ride from the government even when they can't stay afloat on their own.

I know that Limbaa has some easy bromides he gives out while taking a break from buggering Dominican boys. But "easy" != "accurate".

squidsrus:
You
Nobody was forced to take anything. Just because conservatives say it doesn't make it true. And fascism in the proper sense of the word is government being subservient to corporate interests. The other way around is not. True fascism is corporations demanding a free ride from the government even when they can't stay afloat on their own.


Fascism is the merging of state power with a particular ideology. In the case of Italian Fascism, The term corporatism used to describe a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them.

So no, fascism is where the corporation and government merge. But the government is calling the shots. Hence the axe on the fasces symbolizing state power.

err, italian Fascism = State Power + Corporatism.

Bob16: ROBO-Jesus: I find it more sad than funny.

Really ?

I find it completely predictable.

Were you under the impression that just cause america was powerful that it was right ?

I'm not bragging but those in my family will tell you that i predicted our mess of problems about 6 months after raygun took office in 1981. It seemed so obvious to me.

Screw the middle-class and cater to the rich and you will wreck any country.

Don't be naive. Get rich separating them from their money. No government interference involved. And I don't think you predicted anything. Just silly trolling Fark posts.

H_Caulfield: One thing everyone forgets about socialist euro-havens: These countries spend almost nothing on defense. They have that joke NATO, and by extension the United States, to protect them in the event of a threat.

Sure, without having to spend on defense, there is plenty of money left in the budget for lavish government programs. Just imagine what the US could do with another $650 billion or so to spend on socialist programs. Of course this is not an option, but I wish the euros would remember this when they brag about their great social achievements. It is the US taxpayer who, in part, is subsidizing their carefree lifestyles.

I think we are confounding issues of military and defense. Sure we need a strong military for defense... but do we really need spend our military resources in places like Iraq? I mean, it's kind of hard to make the leap that we needed to invade Iraq to defend ourselves... So I say lets keep a military plenty strong enough to defend ourselves, a good nuclear arsenal to let people know that in the event our military is busy, we still have the option of just killing everyone... and stop going on foreign adventure forays at the expense of taxpayers here. I mean, that one war has cost us nearly 665 billion dollars so far, and will likely end up surpassing the trillion dollar mark before it's all over. So the question isn't whether or not we need any military, but whether or not we would be better of spending a trillion dollars turning a dictator led craphole into a warlord/religious leader-led craphole with a democratic veneer, or maybe on getting adequate healthcare and food to citizens here in the US.

ROBO-Jesus: Derrida would be proud.

I have no doubt.

H_Caulfield: Just imagine what the US could do with another $650 billion or so to spend...

Pay off debt or something?

ronaprhys: Yes - in no way did advances in technology allow skilled labor to put into the hands of unskilled labor. In no way did anyone in America insist on paying lower prices for merchandise. None of this could've influenced the economics of the situation.

BTW, what equality measures were terminated and how did that negatively impact anyone's ability to compete?

Advances in technology certainly contributed to some changes in employment structure, just as advances in agricultural technology contributed to such changes during the "industrial revolution". I don't deny this at all. Nor do I deny the fact that people were happy to pay less for the same merchandise - this is a basic truism of economics.Nonetheless, the situation did not change through organic technological advances and economic pressure alone.

The history of American economic development is dominated by the growth of manufacturing which served not only a massive domestic market, but a widespread international market as well. At the beginning of the twentieth century, industrial workers became increasingly well paid, both due to unionization and the realization by industry leaders of "effective demand". Well paid workers => more consumers => more production => more prosperity.

In the last few decades, the geography of manufacturing has changed considerably to the point where the US produces almost nothing anymore. This happened not just because of technology, but because US policy changed to allow "free trade" with unfree countries. It became perfectly acceptable for US companies to set up relations with slave-states like China which could offer significant cheaper labour because they didn't have to worry about keeping their workers well fed or happy. Of course American firms that stayed local couldn't compete - the economic balance of the situation was completely destabilized. The emergence of this service economy has meant that we had to replace effective demand with credit. And now we're seeing the effects of that.

As for equality measures, you need only look at Clinton's HOPE IV program, the infrastructure deficit, or the current state of the education system to see the effects a "fiscally responsible" government has produced.

I work with a guy who came here from Finland. He left because of the crippling taxes, the lack of opportunity, the stifling socialism, and the fact the Finnish health care pulled the plug on his grandfather because it wasn't cost-effective to keep him alive.

He loves it, but hates the fact American is become more socialist under Obama.

NaziKamikaze: The US is the MOST tolerant, offers the best education, the least terroristic, and MOST charitable country in the history of civilization.

"The US is the MOST tolerant, offers the best education, the least terroristic, and MOST charitable country in the history of civilization."

Hmmmm... Perhaps you forgot how the US terrorized Latin America for the longest time. Oh you mean backing up, paying for and training terrorists doesn't count? Then I guess you are right, you didn't terrorized anyone.

Also, when you say "offers the best education" you don't mean at High School level do you?

LawrencePerson: I work with a guy who came here from Finland. He left because of the crippling taxes, the lack of opportunity, the stifling socialism, and the fact the Finnish health care pulled the plug on his grandfather because it wasn't cost-effective to keep him alive.

He loves it, but hates the fact American is become more socialist under Obama.

I was going to give your friend in this vague anecdote the benefit of the doubt, but that last line proves he's a drooling moron.

Are you alright Patrick?

FINLAND!!!

Let's see...
They are basically dull. They aren't particularly adept at much beyond being peaceful and dull. They have high rates of depression and alcoholism.
I can appreciate the "less is more" concept, since I've lived it here in the US. Funny, you don't HAVE to move to Finland to find THAT...interesting he had to do that.

I can't appreciate the "free" health care or schooling. These things aren't "free". You pay taxes (very, very high taxes) for these things. But, here in the US, we seek "other" things for our taxes. We want to keep these "other" things IN ADDITION to the "free" stuff other countries have.

In addition, Finland LACKS several items which hamper the US' ability to get the extras. What are these things? Massive urbanization and a very diverse population, with each minority group clamoring for extra monies to be spent on their "special" treatment. We also have an optimistic and active lifestyle which is costly to maintain, EVEN IF you're going for the "less is more" concept.

See, cultural comparisons are ridiculous. Particularly when half-wit journalists do them.

ROBO-Jesus:

I was going to give your friend in this vague anecdote the benefit of the doubt, but that last line proves he's a drooling moron.

There are no non-socialist politicians in Congress or the White House.

Every one of them supports socialist programs like welfare, social security and medicare.

Obama is far to the left of them...


Seriously. are you this stupid?

communistsarestupid:
crap

So how is this Obama's fault? All this was happening while the conservatives that attempted to kill America were in power. Why blame the new guy when it's your own farking fault?

Answer: conservatives won't take responsibility for anything bad that might happen on their watch. It's all somebody else's fault. Stabbed in the back. Conservatism wasn't really tried. Blah de farking blah. We all know the drill by now.

communistsarestupid: ROBO-Jesus:

I was going to give your friend in this vague anecdote the benefit of the doubt, but that last line proves he's a drooling moron.

There are no non-socialist politicians in Congress or the White House.

Every one of them supports socialist programs like welfare, social security and medicare.

Obama is far to the left of them...


Seriously. are you this stupid?

What did you drooling morons say for the last eight years? Love it or leave it?

Take your own advice pal. Go to some third world shiathole where government doesn't exist and you truly have to survive on your own, since anything that might help one person that isn't a billionaire is just so unforgivably socialist (EEEEEEK!!!). I hear Somalia's nice this time of year.

Did you even read what I said?

"First steps closer to socialism were made by Bush, most of which were promptly disbanded (to my great pleasure) by Obama."

Idiot.

squidsrus:
What did you drooling morons say for the last eight years? Love it or leave it?


No, I've been saying the same things for the past 8 years. But I'm sure you're able to effectively understand what I very clearly articulated without injeting your own moronic bias.

No wait, I'm thinking of someone else.

truth hurts huh?

What people don't understand is a contribution to the socialist utopia by a vast large populice doesn't increase the advancement of a nation, it only keeps it afloat.

Massive people working together only solves problems of war and raising builing. It takes the ideas of a small few people to design that bridge and to work out strategy for the wars.

H_Caulfield: Just imagine what the US could do with another $650 billion or so to spend...

Give more TARP money to Wall Street swindlers?

communistsarestupid: ROBO-Jesus:

I was going to give your friend in this vague anecdote the benefit of the doubt, but that last line proves he's a drooling moron.

There are no non-socialist politicians in Congress or the White House.

Every one of them supports socialist programs like welfare, social security and medicare.

Obama is far to the left of them...


Seriously. are you this stupid?

i dont think you're in any shape to call anyone anything, bud.

you like to drive your car on the freeway?

that's a socialist system.

do you like the mail?

do you like the internet?

telephones?

a five day work week?

all of this was created and funded in party by some form of socialism.

you arent some island, you rest on the backs of others who've worked before you. if you dont like that, find a cave somewhere.

Also,

If Population > (Resources + Jobs) Then Socialism

having read the fools logic contained in the article it's not surprising that fools would be drawn to it and think that all we need to do is be like Finland.

Of course never bothering to consider how far worse all of the other high tax Socialist states around the world are doing than we are.


Stupid is as stupid reads and believes.

MikeMc: H_Caulfield: Just imagine what the US could do with another $650 billion or so to spend...

Give more TARP money to Wall Street swindlers?

we could pay blackwater to invade north korea.

Neruos: Also,

If Population > (Resources + Jobs) Then Socialism

worked for FDR.

Its_A_Tarp: Yet another American who "lives" overseas for a few weeks and then proceeds to lecture Americans about how much more civilized Europeans are *rolls eyes*.

I've been an expat for two years now (an American in the UK) and I've traveled to almost every European country and several African countries. What it has taught me is that happiness means different things to different people. Why we can't just accept that and move on, I have no idea.

Some people like the slow-paced lifestyle of a Finnish cabin. Others enjoy fast cars and living in a crowded city. Just do what you enjoy...

I couldn't agree more.

communistsarestupid: There are no non-socialist politicians in Congress or the White House.

Every one of them supports socialist programs like welfare, social security and medicare.

Obama is far to the left of them...


Seriously. are you this stupid?

SOCIALISM does not equal Social Programs

Socialism has a very specific meaning:
so⋅cial⋅ism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Get that?: advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

There is nothing in there about progressive tax systems - any tax system is equally "socialist". And by this definition countries like Canada and Finland are far less socialist than the US. The provision of public services does not characterize socialist states. When did China or the USSR or any other socialist country ever offer anywhere near the level of government services as any western nation?

Look at my friend's description of Canada's healthcare system:
In the first place, there is no "socialized medicine" in Canada, and nothing even remotely related to or resembling "socialized medicine". Doctors are private entrepreneurs, who sell their services for fees. They are not employed by the state, or directed by the state, but only answerable to their own professional organizations. Patients are free to pick and choose any doctor they wish, and any medical service they wish, and are much more free to do so than American patients, because they are not compelled or constrained in their choices by HMOs or Insurance companies. What Canada has is user-owned insurance pools. Health insurance is paid for by premiums in most of these systems. It isn't "free".


Whereas the economy in the United States,
is one of the most protectionist nations on Earth, and also the most aggressive and extensive purveyor of socialist government subsidies. Canada's level of state intervention in the economy is insignificant, compared to theirs. American agriculture is one gigantic subsidy, absurdly centralized, controlled and collectivized, the equivalent of fifty old Soviet agricultures stacked on top of each other. Individual, private, free market farmers long ago went the way of the passenger pigeon and the dodo.

You're completely right that just about every politician (R or D) in the US is a "socialist" to some degree, as they relentlessly push economic subsidies for certain 'favoured' businesses. However, to claim that Obama is somehow "more" socialist than the previous regime is absurd, as you yourself said: "First steps closer to socialism were made by Bush, most of which were promptly disbanded (to my great pleasure) by Obama."

I heartily recommend reading my friend's post, linked here, titled "What Is Progress? What Is Progressive?" (scroll down on that page). It's a pretty accurate summary of the recent American political situation. (and it's not some 'leftist' rant - he cuts into the Democrats just as much as the Republicans).

ROBO-Jesus: communistsarestupid: There are no non-socialist politicians in Congress or the White House.

Every one of them supports socialist programs like welfare, social security and medicare.

Obama is far to the left of them...


Seriously. are you this stupid?

SOCIALISM does not equal Social Programs

Socialism has a very specific meaning:
so⋅cial⋅ism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Get that?: advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

There is nothing in there about progressive tax systems - any tax system is equally "socialist". And by this definition countries like Canada and Finland are far less socialist than the US. The provision of public services does not characterize socialist states. When did China or the USSR or any other socialist country ever offer anywhere near the level of government services as any western nation?

Look at my friend's description of Canada's healthcare system:
In the first place, there is no "socialized medicine" in Canada, and nothing even remotely related to or resembling "socialized medicine". Doctors are private entrepreneurs, who sell their services for fees. They are not employed by the state, or directed by the state, but only answerable to their own professional organizations. Patients are free to pick and choose any doctor they wish, and any medical service they wish, and are much more free to do so than American patients, because they are not compelled or constrained in their choices by HMOs or Insurance companies. What Canada has is user-owned insurance pools. Health insurance is paid for by premiums in most of these systems. It isn't "free".


Whereas the economy in the United States,
is one of the most protectionist nations on Earth, and also the most aggressive and extensive purveyor of socialist government subsidies. Canada's level of state intervention in the economy is insignificant, compared to theirs. American agriculture is one gigantic subsidy, absurdly centralized, controlled and collectivized, the equivalent of fifty old Soviet agricultures stacked on top of each other. Individual, private, free market farmers long ago went the way of the passenger pigeon and the dodo.

You're completely right that just about every politician (R or D) in the US is a "socialist" to some degree, as they relentlessly push economic subsidies for certain 'favoured' businesses. However, to claim that Obama is somehow "more" socialist than the previous regime is absurd, as you yourself said: "First steps closer to socialism were made by Bush, most of which were promptly disbanded (to my great pleasure) by Obama."

I heartily recommend reading my friend's post, linked here, titled "What Is Progress? What Is Progressive?" (scroll down on that page). It's a pretty accurate summary of the recent American political situation. (and it's not some 'leftist' rant - he cuts into the Democrats just as much as the Republicans).

u r a commie

YouFarkingIdiot: I remember my grandfather talking about his dreams of moving to Finland, with a tear in his eyes as he talked about the opportunities and freedom that awaited.

Oh wait, no one talks about Finland like that. That's the US. But don't let that stop you from bashing it some more

Yeah, I have seen the photos of Floridians leaving the US in makeshift water craft and heading for the great country of Cuba. If only Castro were president here then things would be great.

Freezingprocess: "He who has the most is content with the least" -Some old proverb

"The above proverb is total crap, now where's my damn Ferrari?" -Some new proverb

/Won't find that one in Bartlett's, will ya?

Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: u r a commie

;)

Of course Finland doesn't have "free" college education or health care but thing about what we pay here in the U.S.:

Federal Income Tax
Social Security Tax
Medicare Tax
State Income Tax (in most states)
Municipal Income Tax (in some cities)
Property tax
Gas tax
Sales tax
State and Federal Excise taxes (for those that smoke and/or drink)

And that doesn't even include the myriad "fees" charged by state and local governments.

On top of that we also have to pay for health care (Insurance Premiums + Deductibles + Co-pays + Co-insurance + FSA Contributions = EXPENSIVE) not to mention the fact that if you lose your job you're quite possibly f*cked seeing as health insurance in the U.S. is tied to your job and COBRA is out of reach for a great many unemployed people. Of course there's the tens of thousands of dollars per year for post-secondary education. Are we really that much better off in the end? At first blush it would seem so but then again most Americans are in debt up their eyeballs because hyper-consumption is the basis of the U.S. economy.

Phony_Soldier: Yeah, I have seen the photos of Floridians leaving the US in makeshift water craft and heading for the great country of Cuba. If only Castro were president here then things would be great.

To equate social democracies to dictatorships is both stupid and dishonest. I recall hearing plenty of American's wanting to move to Canada - a country which shares far more language and cultural similarities and has a more welcoming immigration policy than Finland.

Phony_Soldier: YouFarkingIdiot: I remember my grandfather talking about his dreams of moving to Finland, with a tear in his eyes as he talked about the opportunities and freedom that awaited.

Oh wait, no one talks about Finland like that. That's the US. But don't let that stop you from bashing it some more

Yeah, I have seen the photos of Floridians leaving the US in makeshift water craft and heading for the great country of Cuba. If only Castro were president here then things would be great.

on the socialist extreme you get and cuba
on the capitalist extreme, you get somalia

just like the conservative vs liberal argument...

on one extreme you get mark twain
the other, hitler

Has someone pointed out that healthcare in Finland isn't free and they pay it over their taxes?

Restil: In other words, it's pristine and perfect. Free everything (once they've taken all of your income in taxes) and your life will be dictated to be slow, laid back, and impoverished... You'll have enough to live on, sure, you won't starve to death or freeze or anything, but that's pretty much all you get.

You have never, ever been to a Scandinavian country, have you? It's not East Germany.

Finland's economy works because it has a small, dispersed population and an influx of money/market movement from the global, very capitalist, Nokia. Their successes aren't scalable.

jofny: Finland's economy works because it has a small, dispersed population and an influx of money/market movement from the global, very capitalist, Nokia. Their successes aren't scalable.

Says who?

jofny: Finland's economy works because it has a small, dispersed population and an influx of money/market movement from the global, very capitalist, Nokia. Their successes aren't scalable.

I suggest you take a look at my comments here:
ROBO-Jesus

To sum: size isn't so much a factor as organization. You have to give some room for regional differences. Any totally centralized government, no matter how small, will suffer.

I'd also add that the US's size has long been an advantage. When your domestic market is 300+ million, it allows for far better benefits to scale, and far more variety. The film industry is a good example of this.

I have been to Finland at least 30 times over the years. It is one of the most depressing places in Europe.

jofny: very capitalist, Nokia.

Nokia isn't the only major Finnish company that does lots of international business.

WhyteRaven74: jofny: very capitalist, Nokia.

Nokia isn't the only major Finnish company that does lots of international business.

There are three pillars to the Finnish economy:

1. Nokia phones
2. Fiskars scissors
3. Children of Bodom CDs

MikeMc: WhyteRaven74: jofny: very capitalist, Nokia.

Nokia isn't the only major Finnish company that does lots of international business.

There are three pillars to the Finnish economy:

1. Nokia phones
2. Fiskars scissors
3. Children of Bodom CDs

fiskars are damned fine scissors....i have 4 pairs.

spamdog: Says who?

Says China, the USSR, Wall Street, basic information theory?

Subby here.

The thing I got from the article, and from this thread, is basically this. You guys have heard of the 'American Dream', right? A mistake a lot of Americans make is that the 'American Dream' is more like a universal dream that can be best achieved in America.

As the article shows, that's not quite accurate. The American Dream and the Finnish Dream are two separate ideals. The American Dream is a lot of money, a lot of success, streets paved with gold. The Finnish Dream is a quiet modestly-sized cabin on the lake.

To each his own.

jofny: Says China, the USSR, Wall Street, basic information theory?

So, you know nothing then?

WhyteRaven74: jofny: very capitalist, Nokia.

Nokia isn't the only major Finnish company that does lots of international business.

No, it's not. But my point wasn't really to outline the in-depth specifics of their economy...only that when (in the past) Finland hasn't had large, global companies which are disproportionally successful when compared to the rest of their businesses, the model and economy have struggled to keep up.

spamdog: So, you know nothing then?

Right. That's it. The guy who responds with "Who says?" and "So you know nothing?" without contributing a thing obviously is the correct one.

(Also, I forgot to add "the people I met who worked and lived in Finland when I lived there say so"...but I didn't think I needed to jam it down your throat.)