|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I don't know your experience with socialised medicine, but here are mine. Rationing, long waiting lists, bureaucratic corruption and afore mentioned bureacrats determining appropriate treatment, not DRs (New Zealand). |
How do you see these as not problems in private insurance systems? Rationing exists -- people who can pay more, get more care. Insurance company accountants rather than government bureaucrats make the decisions about which procedures and prescriptions to approve.
In contrast to NZ, my experience of public insurance in Korea and Japan has been positive. By contrast, in America I pay much more for much less coverage, I can easily become uninsured if I lose my job, and it's impossible to get coverage for pre-existing conditions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, let's look at the facts contained in this thread:
Norway:
$68 billion in oil revenues.
4.6 million people.
So, roughly $15,000 per person.
A family of four should have $60,000 to live on without working.
Sure, the system seems to be working before you look at this fact. The socialist government must be squandering the money. The people do not live better than similar families who earn $60,000 in the US. Especially considering that they are still working to make money to live on, and they have to pay high taxes.
Perhaps the only reason that the system is working there is that they are following more free market principles in some areas of their government than does the US and most of Europe.
The Norwegian government is debt free. This is a sound principle of a free market government. Governments that borrow and transfer the debt to future generations are socialist.
****
Now, compare the resources on a pro forma basis to the US:
$15,000 in oil revenues per capita would yield $4.5 trillion to the Federal Government and fund the entire operation with money left over for the states or the people.
The US, in contrast to Norway being debt free, has over $70 trillion in total Federal Government liabilities alone. The state and local govenments add trillions more.
This debt is socialistic.
The need to fund the socialistic debt by printing money through the auspices of the Federal Reserve has caused massive inflation, recessions, the 1st Great Depression and now, this second great depression.
The US is more socialistic than Norway.
***********
So, the upshot.
Sound money management and no Federal Reserve means that Norway is less socialistic than the US.
Being peaceful and eschewing militarism and interventionism, two more failed socialist tendencies of the US, means that Norway is less socialistic in these areas.
And still, the Norwegians do not live as well as they could, because the remainder of their socialistic government squanders their hard work through high taxes.
If the Norwegians would privatize their oil wealth, distribute the shares to the people, abolish the socialist spending, and abolish taxation, they would have a per capita standard of living more than 10 times what they do today.
Socialism in Norway has failed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
So, let's look at the facts contained in this thread:
Norway:
$68 billion in oil revenues.
4.6 million people.
So, roughly $15,000 per person.
A family of four should have $60,000 to live on without working.
Sure, the system seems to be working before you look at this fact. |
Yes, if their society's policy was "here's our oil revenue for the year, here you go guys, go out and spend it however you like," a family of four would have $60,000 to live on without working. If that was their society's policy, they would also be being hit by the economic crisis just like many other countries are, prices would be sky high in Norway due to every family having $60,000 extra to spend annually, and private enterprise would leech the vast majority of this wealth and value from Norway's citizens any way it legally could.
Rather, their government saves and invests a large portion of that money, which is why while other countries suffer substantial economic turmoil, theirs is doing just fine. Which is why with stocks having dropped substantially in price, their government is able to increase its purchasing of such financial investments without going into debt doing so. Which is why Norway is likely going to come out of this crisis richer and better off than ever.
Unless you care to give some real world examples of total free market economies -- even ones with similar natural reserves to Norway -- doing better and having a higher overall standard of living, instead of simply mentioning what you imagine would be the case?
| ontheway wrote: |
| Perhaps the only reason that the system is working there is that they are following more free market principles in some areas of their government than does the US and most of Europe. |
If you'd care to give examples, they'd be interesting to discuss. If you don't care to, I don't see what this has to do with reality.
| ontheway wrote: |
The Norwegian government is debt free. This is a sound principle of a free market government. Governments that borrow and transfer the debt to future generations are socialist.
...
This debt is socialistic.
The need to fund the socialistic debt by printing money through the auspices of the Federal Reserve has caused massive inflation, recessions, the 1st Great Depression and now, this second great depression.
The US is more socialistic than Norway.
...
Being peaceful and eschewing militarism and interventionism, two more failed socialist tendencies of the US, means that Norway is less socialistic in these areas. |
Debt isn't a feature of Socialism, it's a feature of poorly managed government of any variety. Yes, a poorly run Socialist country might be more prone to end up in debt because they're spending more, but that doesn't make government debt a tenant of Socialism, it makes it a tenant of ineffective government.
All Socialism is is government control upon the means of production. That's it. It's not debt. It's not preventing gay marriage. It's not for or against slavery. It's not pollution. It has nothing to do with military policy. It's not any of these things that you dislike, and as a result, care to ascribe to Socialism.
The sheer fact that you'd say the United States is more Socialist than Norway says a lot.
I have nothing to say regarding the imaginings which constitute the rest of the post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's not for or against slavery. |
Socialism is slavery mate. Try reading the constitution some time. The great men who founded your country certainly didn't believe in socialism and I fear their moldered bones may be rolling in their graves, as we speak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It's not for or against slavery. |
Socialism is slavery mate. Try reading the constitution some time. The great men who founded your country certainly didn't believe in socialism and I fear their moldered bones may be rolling in their graves, as we speak. |
When the labour is owned by an individual or entity other than the individual worker, slavery is the appropriate word. The extraction of profit from the workers that the socialists fret about (exploitation) is merely a portion of his productive ability (and is a payment for the labour of the entrepreneur/owner of the firm) while in a socialist/communist system it is the full value of his productive ability. In the capitalist system, one can work for himself as well.
But I do not agree with how ontheway frames socialism. And I do not think that fretting about socialism is useful now. Corporatism ought to be our primary concern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well Fox, as usual, is doing a good job.
It would be useful if there was more research and focus on the quality of life for citizens of different countries, like 'Gross National Happiness'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNH
Surely happiness is what societies strive for and should be our real goal.
For the US you'd expect their score would be brought down by the millions without health coverage. Health being probably the most important factor determining a person's quality of life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Socialism is a lot broader than just financial control and financial regulation. The original socialists, in all their different manifestations, had a lot more in mind. If you are not aware that the socialists had in mind all sorts of military adventurism, nationalization of education, and the creation of some form of "good citizen" and, in the extreem, the "good communist man," then you obviously have not studied socialism.
The Democrats and Republicans adopted all of the party planks of the early socialist and communist parties. They have subsequently pretended that they are not socialist by pretending that all sorts of socialistic things: militarism, war, national debt, social security, the war on drugs ... are somehow not socialistic. The fact is, the early socialists all wanted and were the major reason that education was nationalized in the US, once legal drugs were criminalized, social security was created - these were essential and fundamental demands of the socialists. Likewise the socialists demanded control of the air and water, nationalized these forms of private property, which is what has allowed legal pollution.
Fox, you need to go back to school and study. There are thousands of books you should read on economic history before you come on here and prove that you haven't studied economic history by claiming things that are silly nonsense. Even Milton Freedman claimed that all of these things are socialistic and explained how the Ds and Rs adopted them.
Socialism is any government tax, regulation or spending. The bigger the government, the more socialist it is. Borrowing is a tool of socialism because it allows the government to consume greater quantities of resources immediately. It shifts the burden to future taxpayers, of course, which is convenient and undemocratic, but the spending is socialistic, so the debt which funds it is socialistic.
The US is more socialistic than Norway, not in every area, but in total, absolutely.
But, the socialism in Norway has failed totally. They are squandering their resources.
And it is truly silly to say that there would be more inflation if the people had control of the oil income instead of the government. Inflation has only one cause: printing money that is not backed by gold or whatever commodity is backing the currency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Borrowing is a tool of socialism because it allows the government to consume greater quantities of resources immediately. |
But capitlism also says 'you've got to spend money to make money'.
I smell a Fox smackdown a comin'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| But capitlism also says 'you've got to spend money to make money'. |
No, Keynes' disciples say this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, we're playing the 'look at how well country X is doing game?' Well, rather than debate the worthiness of the game, I'll just jump right in and have fun.
It appears that reality is delivering non-Anglo-Saxon Europe an ass kicking.
| The �conomist wrote: |
| One of the ironies of this downturn is that it was caused by global housing and credit busts, and yet the economies that have suffered most, such as Germany and Japan, sat out the credit boom. Even in Europe some sinners have faired better than saints, in GDP terms at least. As painful as Spain�s construction bust is, in terms of lost jobs and evaporating tax revenues, its economy has contracted less and more slowly than Germany�s. |
One of the things amateurs (I don't presume to be any better than an amateur, but being one, I know one when I see one) need to realize is that the market punishes not only sinners, but also those who trade with sinners. However, unemployment seems to be delayed in Europe.
| The �conomist wrote: |
Europe�s inflexible labour markets may hamper jobs growth, but they also work against rapid lay-offs in recession. The unemployment rate in Germany has scarcely budged in the past year. The bad news on euro-zone jobs has mostly been in Ireland and Spain, where jobless rates have roughly doubled in a year. Ireland is one of Europe�s most flexible economies.
Things will not get much better soon. Business-activity indicators across the euro-zone are starting to pick up from record lows. That points not to a revival but rather to a slower rate of GDP decline in the present quarter (it could scarcely get worse). A meaningful recovery is a long way off. Firms cannot take losses forever without shedding jobs. Unemployment in Germany and elsewhere will begin to pick up quickly this year and carry on in 2010. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Socialism is a lot broader than just financial control and financial regulation. The original socialists, in all their different manifestations, had a lot more in mind. |
I agree, it is broader than that. It just happens to not include the immense variety of things you'd care to place within it's auspices.
Things like taxes, pollution, military action, oppression, and so forth predate by far any of your "original Socialists," unless your original Socialists were cave men. Calling these things Socialist merely because Socialists did them, as such, doesn't make much sense; so did many other political groups in history. To be a bit facetious, Socialists also had eating and breathing in mind, so would you call those Socialist? Of course not; Socialists did those things, but they were hardly the first to indulge in those very common activities.
I know you'd love to equate pollution, slavery, military action, oppression of minorities, and more or less anything you don't want to see in existence with Socialism, but that's just not what the word means.
| ontheway wrote: |
| The Democrats and Republicans adopted all of the party planks of the early socialist and communist parties. They have subsequently pretended that they are not socialist by pretending that all sorts of socialistic things: militarism, war, national debt, social security, the war on drugs ... are somehow not socialistic. |
That's because most of those aren't Socialistic. Social security is Socialist, public education (which isn't in the quoted segment of text, but mentioned earlier) is Socialist, but things like militarism and war certainly aren't, nor is government debt (though the things funded by that debt can be).
| ontheway wrote: |
| Likewise the socialists demanded control of the air and water, nationalized these forms of private property, which is what has allowed legal pollution. |
Unless something is specifically made illegal by the government, it is legal. Illegalizing pollution is a government regulation of business practice. As you say elsewhere in this post:
| ontheway wrote: |
| Socialism is any government tax, regulation or spending. |
By your own expansive definition of Socialism, regulation of pollution is Socialism. Yet you argue just the opposite.
| ontheway wrote: |
| The US is more socialistic than Norway, not in every area, but in total, absolutely. |
Not in any sense that the vast majority of us would use the word to mean, no.
| ontheway wrote: |
| But, the socialism in Norway has failed totally. They are squandering their resources. |
"I imagine Norway would be doing better in my hypothetical totally unregulated, barely governed, free market system, and thus it's Socialist aspects (which are quite numerous) are a failure." isn't very compelling. Can you give some specific examples of how the Norweigan government is squandering it's wealth?
| ontheway wrote: |
| And it is truly silly to say that there would be more inflation if the people had control of the oil income instead of the government. Inflation has only one cause: printing money that is not backed by gold or whatever commodity is backing the currency. |
So you're saying that if, instead of the Norweigan government investing billions of dollars of oil proceeds in foreign businesses, they were to just hand it out to their citizens directly, the price of goods and services for the common man would remain totally unchanged? A carton of milk would cost exactly the same as it does now there, despite everyone having substantially higher purchasing power?
Given the rest of your post essentially mocks me for not ascribing to your incredibly broad definition of Socialism, I don't have much to say to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| Socialism is a lot broader than just financial control and financial regulation. The original socialists, in all their different manifestations, had a lot more in mind. |
I agree, it is broader than that. It just happens to not include the immense variety of things you'd care to place within it's auspices.
Things like taxes, pollution, military action, oppression, and so forth predate by far any of your "original Socialists," unless your original Socialists were cave men. Calling these things Socialist merely because Socialists did them, as such, doesn't make much sense; so did many other political groups in history. To be a bit facetious, Socialists also had eating and breathing in mind, so would you call those Socialist? Of course not; Socialists did those things, but they were hardly the first to indulge in those very common activities.
I know you'd love to equate pollution, slavery, military action, oppression of minorities, and more or less anything you don't want to see in existence with Socialism, but that's just not what the word means.
| ontheway wrote: |
| The Democrats and Republicans adopted all of the party planks of the early socialist and communist parties. They have subsequently pretended that they are not socialist by pretending that all sorts of socialistic things: militarism, war, national debt, social security, the war on drugs ... are somehow not socialistic. |
That's because most of those aren't Socialistic. Social security is Socialist, public education (which isn't in the quoted segment of text, but mentioned earlier) is Socialist, but things like militarism and war certainly aren't, nor is government debt (though the things funded by that debt can be).
| ontheway wrote: |
| Likewise the socialists demanded control of the air and water, nationalized these forms of private property, which is what has allowed legal pollution. |
Unless something is specifically made illegal by the government, it is legal. Illegalizing pollution is a government regulation of business practice. As you say elsewhere in this post:
| ontheway wrote: |
| Socialism is any government tax, regulation or spending. |
By your own expansive definition of Socialism, regulation of pollution is Socialism. Yet you argue just the opposite.
| ontheway wrote: |
| The US is more socialistic than Norway, not in every area, but in total, absolutely. |
Not in any sense that the vast majority of us would use the word to mean, no.
| ontheway wrote: |
| But, the socialism in Norway has failed totally. They are squandering their resources. |
"I imagine Norway would be doing better in my hypothetical totally unregulated, barely governed, free market system, and thus it's Socialist aspects (which are quite numerous) are a failure." isn't very compelling. Can you give some specific examples of how the Norweigan government is squandering it's wealth?
| ontheway wrote: |
| And it is truly silly to say that there would be more inflation if the people had control of the oil income instead of the government. Inflation has only one cause: printing money that is not backed by gold or whatever commodity is backing the currency. |
So you're saying that if, instead of the Norweigan government investing billions of dollars of oil proceeds in foreign businesses, they were to just hand it out to their citizens directly, the price of goods and services for the common man would remain totally unchanged? A carton of milk would cost exactly the same as it does now there, despite everyone having substantially higher purchasing power?
Given the rest of your post essentially mocks me for not ascribing to your incredibly broad definition of Socialism, I don't have much to say to it. |
Actually, my post mocks you for your lack of economic education, your lack of reading ability evidenced by your inability to discern the intricaties of what I have written, and your lack of logical aptitude.
To reexplain what I have written, to you, would take a complete reevaluation and visitation to your whole educational background, which is why I made the reference to the thousands of unread (by you) books which are missing from your experience, understanding and lexicon. Hence your failure to recognize the historical facts of the extent of socialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Actually, my post mocks you for your lack of economic education, your lack of reading ability evidenced by your inability to discern the intricaties of what I have written, and your lack of logical aptitude.
To reexplain what I have written, to you, would take a complete reevaluation and visitation to your whole educational background, which is why I made the reference to the thousands of unread (by you) books which are missing from your experience, understanding and lexicon. Hence your failure to recognize the historical facts of the extent of socialism. |
I'm okay with you feeling that way. If you care to address the objections I raised to your post (or, in the case of the "Norway is squandering it's wealth" response, give some specific examples), I look forward to it. If you don't, my objections stand; if you care to construe it as "I'm only letting them stand because you're too uneducated to understand my answer," that's fine. If someone else cares to step in and try to answer those objections, I'm happy to discuss it with them instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Actually, my post mocks you for your lack of economic education, your lack of reading ability evidenced by your inability to discern the intricaties of what I have written, and your lack of logical aptitude |
ZING!!!
What's your economics education? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the "original" socialists were anarchists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
