asdfsdiofjioasdf

[Ginger_Warrior]

So you are basically saying that you trust other people more than you trust yourself with money. "Experts" do not always hold the same views about where your money should go as you do.

 

I'm well aware of that. That's why I vote. I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I'm an economic expert.

 

 

 

Do you have to open up an argument with an attack :| ?

 

Did he? I've no tolerance for people who dismiss other people's opinions as stupid simply for not agreeing with them.

 

 

 

Do we have to talk in extremes everytime we bash something? I hate getting in emotional arguments about economics. The more you look at emotional arguments the nicer a utopia sounds. And then you take five seconds, it clicks, and you realize the world isn't perfect and never will be.

 

No one's suggesting the world would be a perfect place with socialism dominating every place on Earth. Indeed, that would be worse than capitalism being all over the world. A healthy world economy needs to opposing economic models. I don't really mind about arguing emotionally with economics. Yes, capitalism produces more financially but I personally don't find that very attractive when others suffer unnecessarily as a result. And if the money I don't need goes to helping people who do need that money, and raising the standards of everyone, then that's money well spent so far as I'm concerned.

 

 

 

I'm not one of the believers who think "greed" is synonymous with "humans".

 

 

 

That's a nice if. People like having the money they earned. It's kind of human nature, or rather human necessity- a sense of property.

 

And I'm not doubting that. There can be are already examples of high taxation and personal property though. It's a balance of how much people should be expected to provide to society at large, and how much they should be allowed to keep for themselves. From an ethical point of view, I don't find it acceptable that some people earn millions for working the same intensity and amount of labour as someone who earns only thousands a year.

 

 

 

I was more annoyed about the aura he was trying to give off. "I'm better than others because I give to charity while they just want to force tax on all of us". It's ultimately based around the whole "liberal" stereotype, and if I was to sit here and imply that "all Christians are ego-centric lunatics who believe they're better than everyone else for their beliefs", I'd be rightly told to shut up for being arrogant and pompous.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure he already answered both of those questions.

 

No, I don't think he did. He just left as an umbrella term.

 

 

 

Well that came out of left field. He said that if you want socialism, Europe has it. And you respond by saying that America should just stop being a super-power in the world market?

 

 

 

What?

 

He was complaining about Euro-socialist attitudes inside America, when in actual fact, Europe feels the effect of American capitalism far more than the reverse. If he wants to whine about that situation, so will I.

 

 

 

As for Cuba, let's be honest, Michael Moore isn't the only person who believes Cuba has a better healthcare system. Indeed, it's a pointless argument. The point is, if communism is such an economically disastrous model, and Cuba is so far behind the rest of the developed world, and it has an embargo placed on it, it shouldn't be anywhere near the richest nation on Earth in an rea as money-dependant as healthcare. I'm not saying Communism is the best system. No economic system is better than the rest, it depends on the nation and its population's needs and desires. But it does question some presumed beliefs about both socialism and communism's impacts.

[gedboy2112]

As my siggy say's I think that socialism is a G.R.E.A.T Idea.

 

 

 

I support the Social democracy.

 

 

 

This which I agree with all of what they say (but I would go to the extent of the green's and want to vote for them or the peace party can't decide which)

 

 

 

 

 

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

 

 

 

* A mixed economy consisting mainly of private enterprise, but with government owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care and related services for all people.

 

(I will admit I don't have health insurence and universal health care would be nice)

 

* Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.

 

(Has anyone noticed that deregulation that fiscal conservatives do for the "free market" has just screwed up our econmey)

 

* Advocacy of fair trade over free trade. BIG YES

 

* An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.

 

* Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a value-added and/or progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure. nessecery evil

 

 

 

Social democrats also tend to support:

 

 

 

* Environmental protection laws (although not always to the extent advocated by Greens), such as combating global warming and increasing alternative energy funding.

 

* Support for immigration and multiculturalism.

 

(I'm sorta iffy on this one, I think that illegals can go back to there country but I get called racist for this.)

 

* A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree.

 

* A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.

 

* As well as human rights, social democrats also support social rights, civil rights and civil liberties. (social liberal policy's kinda come with socialism, notice anything about capitalism?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* The regulations placed on the market by social democracy tend to limit economic efficiency and growth, and impede the creation of wealth that may be needed to alleviate global poverty.

 

* Social democracy places unacceptable constraints on individual rights in order to reach its societal goals.

 

* Social democratic programs sometimes entail large government outlays, which can result in sizable budget deficits.

 

* State provision of education, health care, childcare and other services limits individual choice (and requires users to pay twice if they opt to use privately-run services).

 

 

 

Social democrats reply along the following lines:

 

 

 

* Social democratic policies actually enhance individual rights by raising the standard of living of the great majority of the population, increasing social mobility, raising the power of workers and consumers in society.

 

* The unregulated market that fiscal conservatives advocate is incapable of addressing global poverty and inequality in an equitable way.

 

* Social democracy stabilises economic conditions by providing economic security to individuals and eliminating the threat of extreme poverty.

 

* The argument that social democratic governments spend too much and run up deficits is undermined by the record of conservative administrations (e.g. in the United States and the United Kingdom) which have run up unprecedented deficits.

 

* By restricting some economic rights, social democracy makes the market more fair (for small businesses and consumers, for example).

[l0l0lpur32]

On the note that socialism and communism could work. I refuse to give my money away to those who have not worked for it.

 

Can you explain to me how a CEO who saw a gap in the market, built a business to the point he longer has to work for it, but owns it nonetheless for the money it produces, has worked for that money? All he's done is organised a clever way of making people earn money for him.

 

You say that like it's easy - you do know the vast majority of new businesses fail within a few years? If there was no profit motive, very few people (less than now) would take the risk of opening a business and no new products would ever be made and we would be stuck in the 1950s. (Let me guess, under socialism/communism people would develop new products "for the good of society"?)

[dsavi]

asdfghjkl

[dusqi]

This is the point I'm always torn on because there are people who need the help, but at the same time the wealthy deserve to keep their money.

 

 

 

Broadly I agree. People earn money because they do something that someone else wants to pay for, which is great for society. However, my issue comes at the highest levels of income. Some people earn tens of millions or hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars per year. Can we really accept that they're being 500 to 50,000 times more productive than the guy earning $20,000 per year?

 

 

 

So, sure, I think that some people deserve more than others, because they work harder, because they produce more, because they spent longer educating themselves, because they take greater risks. I just don't think that anyone does enough work to be worth the same as 10,000 other people.

 

 

 

This is why the rich should be taxed more.

[Will H]

 

*Education is what is keeping the rich/poor divide open. Rich families are paying for better education, and on average get the better jobs, and therefore can afford to improve their own children's education, and on average get the better jobs etc.

 

Ideally, Capitalism in education should be eradicated, not by forceful means, but by improving state schools so independent schools are made redundant.

 

 

 

Education isn't really important,really.My entire primary school class.Third highest results for the level out of ten classes during preliminary exams.2/3 of us,including myself went to schools that average 201 after PSLE.Thats our system,by the way.

 

 

 

[hide=Short mini-rant]My score was something like

 

 

 

English-A

 

Maths-A*

 

Science-A

 

Chinese-C.

 

 

 

Out of 300 I got around 220,went to a lousy school.[/hide]

 

 

 

Anyway,at 17,personally I without gambling,earn about 1.2k at a part time job where I work for 2-5 hours,not even daily.I get free food and drinks there,I get to watch free live shows,and I can flirt with girls during work time.

 

 

 

Thats how it is,there can never be a perfect education system because freaks like me exist.If say it was adapted to fit me,there would be some other freak who had encountered another flaw in the system,and so on.

 

There is no such thing as a perfect education system, and I was talking about typical trends. But there is such thing as a better education system, and there's plenty of potential in state schools to get a lot better.