British Socialism

[Shai Gar]

Yes, but it's not the same man.

Here's my quote on the topic: "Nothing is worth dying for except the pursuit of Immortality. Causes should be lived for, striven for, dedicated to, and you make other people die for them."

 

[Satya]

I think that socialism may be better at having open doors for immigration by allowing free flux of war victims. When USA went into Iraq, tens of thousands came here... Thus, why basic security is heaven for them as well as free education - but no jobs...

I'm a bastard because I'm a perfect example of someone who uses this system to my advantage, the public sector, to then get the hell out of here and then if I become old, I can freely return and get a long vacation of my pension..

But the eternal damage, the years in between can never be erased...

Janet said it perfectly:

I don't advise that you come to America then. We have socialized schools, public transportation, road systems, military, police, emergency response, etc. Those things are owned by the government and paid for by taxes, aka socialism. It sounds like we are just too socialist a nation to accommodate you.

 

[Pristinegirl]

I don't advise that you come to America then. We have socialized schools, public transportation, road systems, military, police, emergency response, etc. Those things are owned by the government and paid for by taxes, aka socialism. It sounds like we are just too socialist a nation to accommodate you.

Ohh well you advice is useless to me. And thats nothing but ignorance, theres not a single nation in the world who doesnt have roads!

 

[Satya]

Ohh well you advice is useless to me. And thats nothing but ignorance, theres not a single nation in the world who doesnt have roads!

We have an Interstate Highway System, paid for by the United States government. It's responsible for generating hundreds of billions of dollars worth of business each year. Damn that socialism! Damn it to hell!

Or here is a crazy thought...maybe socialism is just one conceptual end of an economic spectrum. Maybe ideas aren't inherently evil...maybe it is the way people use ideas that is evil.

Of course, if you downright hate socialism, then I seriously doubt a mixed economy like the one in America is where you want to live.

 

[Rudy]

Ohh well you advice is useless to me. And thats nothing but ignorance, theres not a single nation in the world who doesnt have roads!

Satya is right to a certain extent. The point is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people agree that the government should be doing some things with public funds. Defense or roads or schools, etc.

The argument is not "privatization is always good" v. "privatization is never good," but rather "How much privatization is good?" I happen to think the ideal level of privatization is higher than Satya thinks, and this is being confirmed by my current studies of economics, but I certainly don't argue that privatization is always superior.

 

[Satya]

Satya is right to a certain extent. The point is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people agree that the government should be doing some things with public funds. Defense or roads or schools, etc.

The argument is not "privatization is always good" v. "privatization is never good," but rather "How much privatization is good?" I happen to think the ideal level of privatization is higher than Satya thinks, and this is being confirmed by my current studies of economics, but I certainly don't argue that privatization is always superior.

Thank you. I'm not against privatization in the least, and the argument goes both ways. "How much socialism is good?" Capitalism naturally produces problems, like externalities such as pollution. It seems incredibly ignorant to me to adovocate for lassiz faire capitalism in this day and age, particularly considering that it lead to the Great Depression. Bush's deregulation of the market's largely contributed to the current recession we are in, and while I'm not arguing that is a case for more government control, I am arguing that is a case for better government control and better ideas with how to deal with the moral hazard of safety nets.

 

[Rudy]

It seems incredibly ignorant to me to adovocate for lassiz faire capitalism in this day and age, particularly considering that it lead to the Great Depression.

A lot of things led to the Great Depression, so your statement is a gross oversimplification. Nonetheless, your general point is valid. That is, Laissez Faire Capitalism doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

It's all about the mixed economies, baby. I am, for example, for government spending on (primary) education, roads, defense, courts, police, and basic medical care (that is, cheaper things like checkups and antibiotics I support, but not major surgeries.)

Basically, my opinion on government spending is based on the efficiency principle. Whatever government spending increases overall societal good is a good thing. Basic medical care is efficient because the costs of it are lower than the costs of the ailment they prevent from the societal viewpoint. Welfare is not efficient, because it redistributes income without creating any net value.

 

[Satya]

A lot of things lead to the Great Depression, so your statement is a gross oversimplification. Nonetheless, your general point is valid. That is, Laissez Faire Capitalism doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

It's all about the mixed economies, baby. I am, for example, for government spending on (primary) education, roads, defense, courts, police, and basic medical care (that is, cheaper things like checkups and antibiotics I support, but not major surgeries.)

Basically, my opinion on government spending is based on the efficiency principle. Whatever government spending increases overall societal efficiency is a good thing. Basic medical care is efficient because the costs of it are lower than the costs of the ailment they prevent from the societal viewpoint. Welfare is not efficient, because it redistributes income without creating any net value.

The exact mixture is a matter of debate.

However, I will agree that this country has tried numerous failed policies in regards to welfare. I think a supplemented income policy would probably be best. First, a liveable wage is calculated depending upon area and the government makes up the difference between a worker's current wage and what the liveable wage for their area is. As such, taxes will inherently increase as more workers are working under a liveable wage and decrease as more workers are working over a liveable wage. That incentivizes businesses to pay their workers a liveable wage, and workers will only have their income supplemented by the governemnt as long as they are working so they remain incentived to work. Workers will have more money to spend, which will push down prices, further stabilizing the liveable wage.

 

[Pristinegirl]

We have an Interstate Highway System, paid for by the United States government. It's responsible for generating hundreds of billions of dollars worth of business each year. Damn that socialism! Damn it to hell!

Or here is a crazy thought...maybe socialism is just one conceptual end of an economic spectrum. Maybe ideas aren't inherently evil...maybe it is the way people use ideas that is evil.

Of course, if you downright hate socialism, then I seriously doubt a mixed economy like the one in America is where you want to live.

I think you are confused on Socialism, the ideology as opposed to socialist measures, which all developed countries more or less.

I'm not against certain socialistic means taken but against SOCIALISM as a whole (the evil). COME ON, is your argument that infrastructure implies socialism?

And AGAIN, I'm not against the so called mixed economy - its the pure extremist socialistic one.

The swedish 'green-blue' block government (S) is extremely socialist (red) to everyone but the Swedes who percieve it as 'green-blue' and places it on the right side of the scale.

Left|------I------|Right
..................(S)


WHILE if we compare it to the states who thinks THEY ARE TURNING socialistic NOW..... IN COMPARATION SWEDEN is not even on the same mapping. And America is FAR FAR MORE right.

...------------------------------------------------------------- RIGHT..
(S) ...............................................................................(USA)

Satya is right to a certain extent. The point is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people agree that the government should be doing some things with public funds. Defense or roads or schools, etc.

The argument is not "privatization is always good" v. "privatization is never good," but rather "How much privatization is good?" I happen to think the ideal level of privatization is higher than Satya thinks, and this is being confirmed by my current studies of economics, but I certainly don't argue that privatization is always superior.

I don't know how anyone can think I'm against the public sector all together when I'm for the health care reform and basic security. I am for it to a certain extent, just simply against the extremist one.

 

[Satya]

I don't know how anyone can think I'm against the public sector all together when I'm for the health care reform and basic security. I am for it to a certain extent, just simply against the extremist one.

What is extremest? That Obama wants a public option so as to increase competition in the market between insurance companies? That is as extreme as it gets for health care reform in our country.

And frankly, there has never been a purely socialist country. That is as impossible as there being a purely capitalistic country. There have been revolutionary socialist countries (communists) like the Soviet Union, but socialism is generally treated as a form of reformism. When people refer to "socialism" in my country, they are usually referring to Social Democracy.

 

[Pristinegirl]

What is extremest? That Obama wants a public option so as to increase competition in the market between insurance companies? That is as extreme as it gets for health care reform in our country.

And frankly, there has never been a purely socialist country. That is as impossible as there being a purely capitalistic country. There have been revolutionary socialist countries (communists) like the Soviet Union, but socialism is generally treated as a form of reformism. When people refer to "socialism" in my country, they are usually referring to Social Democracy.

And yes, but what I was saying was that the swedish 'liberal-conservative' block of 'blue-green' on our scale, are in fact EXTREMELY socialistic and RED on your political scale.
Every democratic developed country has means of certain socialist measures as a public sector. However Sweden is to the point where it believes in a HUGE public sector - high tax rate. And people who are unemployed, as well as to make people consume, the state provides all kinds of welfare supports freely (as opposed to lowering taxes).... That is the disease of socialism!

Obviously not, but what are you trying to get at? Like I don't see where this is heading really?
I do hate extremism = Socialism is one form, because I am living the hell that comes by it. Freedom comes at a high price; Freedom costs safety!

And Personally I'd trade in all my security for a life of Freedom. Because as we all know, safety is not certain and the security often fails many individuals/families.

 

[WhiteWolf]

And Personally I'd trade in all my security for a life of Freedom. Because as we all know, safety is not certain and the security often fails many individuals/families.

I'm wondering what you mean with freedom when you are talking about socialism.
I get the impression that you think Sweden limits your freedom. In what way then?
just curious.

 

[Julia]

The grass is always greener... blah blah blah. Its not about freaking health insurance even... It looks as though its free but only on the surface.. So many can't even get it. Socialism emphasises a public sector that DISSABLES a person to be whatever you want to be. Just think why a goddam doctor who has studied for 10 years should have to pay 80 % taxes... as opposed to someone who has not studied at all and is cleaning the streets and only pays 3 % taxes. FOR WHAT? EQUALITY? haha thats not equality - thats UNFAIR TREATMENT!!!

Everything is more colourful ones you are liberated, yes!!

What are the numbers of the take-home salaries of the doctors in Sweden? Also, do they have student loan debt.? In the U.S. medical training often leaves a person with 100,000 dollars or more student loan debt. This isn't so bad when the yearly salary is also 100K or more. People go into medicine for the financial, humanitarian rewards as well as intellectual challenge and the prestige of it. Intelligent people typically like being challenged. Menial work can be pretty painful for people with intelligence levels that make them suited for medicine.

I am curious what access and quality is like for medical care when socialized. The system in the U.S. is broken, but that doesn't necessarily mean that socialized medicine doesn't also produce broken systems.

 

[Satya]

And yes, but what I was saying was that the swedish 'liberal-conservative' block of 'blue-green' on our scale, are in fact EXTREMELY socialistic and RED on your political scale.

Red on our scale is traditionalist conservative. They are usually religious fundamentalists who favor freer markets but who still advocate government spending. Blue on our scale is modern liberals, which translates to the rest of the world as social democrats. Classical liberals, who value personal freedom and low government spending, don't have a major political party in our country. Most policies advocated by modern liberals (Democrats) are seen as "socialistic". By Swedish standards, they are probably seen as fairly moderate.

 

[Pristinegirl]

I'm wondering what you mean with freedom when you are talking about socialism.
I get the impression that you think Sweden limits your freedom. In what way then?
just curious.

Freedom to me is the ability to be who and what you want to be without restraints. As it is, these restrains are to minimize class differences. However, they also prevents a dreamer who wants it big, like myself to be doomed to live a life in hell. You can't have your cake and eat it: Personal freedom vs. common ownership. Same with growth vs. environment.

So yes Sweden limits my freedom. It is ultimately why I highly disslike it so much, which is sad because it truly is a beautiful country. =)

What are the numbers of the take-home salaries of the doctors in Sweden? Also, do they have student loan debt.? In the U.S. medical training often leaves a person with 100,000 dollars or more student loan debt. This isn't so bad when the yearly salary is also 100K or more. People go into medicine for the financial, humanitarian rewards as well as intellectual challenge and the prestige of it. Intelligent people typically like being challenged.

I am curious what access and quality is like for medical care when socialized. The system in the U.S. is broken, but that doesn't necessarily mean that socialized medicine doesn't also produce broken systems.

Loans depends on where they have studied. Usually all students take loans more or less however. Most universities are free here, although many students move from home to another city, pay rent and for literature and such, thus why they take student loans.

Swedish mean study loan is: $17 077 [According to CSN January 2009]
Original sallary/month: $2850 - $4270 (chief Dr. $5690)
[according to Dr's statements & the swe newspaper Aftonbladet and DN]

Taxed (59%): $1681- $2519 (chief Dr. $3357)


There are huge lack of doctors in sweden. And it is extremely hard to get into med-school because the demand is WAY higher than supply! STILL they dont want to increase the number of supply, BECAUSE as it is the few doctors have power so to say, power to negoshiate on their sallary. As there is a 'take it or leave it you won't find another doctor who is willing to take this bid' mentality... So the health care is so corrupt!!

Red on our scale is traditionalist conservative. They are usually religious fundamentalists who favor freer markets but who still advocate government spending. Blue on our scale is modern liberals, which translates to the rest of the world as social democrats. Classical liberals, who value personal freedom and low government spending, don't have a major political party in our country. Most policies advocated by modern liberals (Democrats) are seen as "socialistic". By Swedish standards, they are probably seen as fairly moderate.

Oh that is very interesting haha! Then again haha I forgot you had the two party system thing, is that why perhaps? Here we have a multi-party system, where every party with at least 4 % of the population's votes gets to be a part of the parlament. This upcoming election next year, there will be a BIG change because an extremist Nationalist party is predicted to have more than 4 % (which has never happened before)... They are against ALL imigrants what so ever.

Aww thank you for understanding what I meant that "socialistic" for you is considered very conservative and capitalistic over here ( ^^ I feel affirmed haha )

 

[Shai Gar]

There are huge lack of doctors in sweden. And it is extremely hard to get into med-school because the demand is WAY higher than supply! STILL they dont want to increase the number of supply, BECAUSE as it is the few doctors have power so to say, power to negoshiate on their sallary. As there is a 'take it or leave it you won't find another doctor who is willing to take this bid' mentality... So the health care is so corrupt!!

We call that Capitalism.

 

[Pristinegirl]

We call that Capitalism.

Yea but no because its not privately controlled, the doctors work for the state and the hospitals are owned by the state. The few doctors here have some power only because if they quit too, then there are no doctors in Sweden, because the majority move away. So then their sallary is pushed upwards (not alot though)

 

[Shai Gar]

doctors demanding more money because there's no competition is called capitalism.

 

[Pristinegirl]

doctors demanding more money because there's no competition is called capitalism.

Ahh I see, but they aren't demanding it. They simply deny the job. Then the hospital needs to be approved by the state then a few hours later they will call up the doctor asking if they want the same job but for a slightly higher sallary, if they come in INSTANTLY xD

 

[Shai Gar]

That's how you demand something properly.