Something is happening but you do not know what it means!

With the crisis in the western capitalist system there is a new openness to discuss alternative models of organising society.

Over on the Obama thread I feel there is a discussion going on between people who have not had a discussion of that sort since the eighties.

Since Reagan in the US, Thatcher, Kohl over here in Europe any discussion that there might be a different/better way of running our society has been marginalised. The mantra for the last 30 years was the market knows best and we should listen to our political and business leaders as they know best.

Look at where that has got us, an economic system in meltdown, unemployment rocketing, a debt crisis in many countries and the elephant in the room, a planet in severe danger from global warming.

Discuss
 
Mar 18, 2009
57
0
0
Great Topic

The place to start for me would be to identify which societies seem to have the greatest quality of life, across the entire economic scale. And to model and improve upon their system. The current western system seems to have tons of room for improvement.

Specifically lets discuss

Unemployment - Economic - Debt - Environment.

The coloration between unemployment directly affects the Economy, with out disposable income, it simply creates a downward spiral. Because if I am just making it, I can no longer afford to spend my extra money at your place of business, and as your wallet shrinks you can no longer afford to spend money at my place of business. And we cant afford to put any extra money into the stock market.

It appears that the us stock market, seems to reward those at the top of the giant pyramid. At the same time by the rules of that game it has squeezed the middle in such a way that the people who worked at the factory have been sold out, for the sake of the stock price. Short term gain, long term pain. By shipping many of the manufacturing jobs overseas, we have eliminated many of the customers. Worse yet in the high tech field we often times outsource or import many of the high paying jobs.

In order for a better quality of life to happen for all, I believe that it would require an improvement and clarification of what is really important to you and society (values).

My understanding on the manufacturing side of things would point me to Japan, and would push an education of the Deming principals. In fact I would highly recommend reading and applying the 14 point quality system to anyone in any aspect. Expanding from the manufacturing side of things an applying to health, and vitality.

No expert but I think in the US Ross Perot had a great Idea of taxing gas by .25 and using that to provide healthcare for all. I am sure the insurance lobby pushed very hard against that plan as well. Gas is way to in expensive in the US. And the people who profit do their best to discourage alternative fuels.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ruamruam said:
I agree but it is in crisis and however it comes out of this crisis, nothing is going to be the same again.
There were similar sentiments in the late 1930's in the immediate aftermath of the great depression in the US. Granted, what happened here then did not have nearly the global impact as what has happened this time.

In all reality, capitalism is the least worst form of a public economic system. The key is to be able to identify corruption early and act swiftly. Free market principals work reasonably well unless they are under regulated, over regulated or corrupt. I think will always be a question to determine what is the correct balance of public/private interaction? There are competing interests on either side so I think there will always be this discussion and folks will always have a different opinion on what's best.
 
Scott SoCal said:
There were similar sentiments in the late 1930's in the immediate aftermath of the great depression in the US. Granted, what happened here then did not have nearly the global impact as what has happened this time.

In all reality, capitalism is the least worst form of a public economic system. The key is to be able to identify corruption early and act swiftly. Free market principals work reasonably well unless they are under regulated, over regulated or corrupt. I think will always be a question to determine what is the correct balance of public/private interaction? There are competing interests on either side so I think there will always be this discussion and folks will always have a different opinion on what's best.
In the 1930s they weren't faced with global warming and dwindling oil supplies.

Capitalism has served the richer countries but has been devastating for much of the third world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ruamruam said:
In the 1930s they weren't faced with global warming and dwindling oil supplies.

Capitalism has served the richer countries but has been devastating for much of the third world.

There's no man-made global warming now. In my opinion, the trading of carbon credits may be one of the greatest examples of what's wrong with a capitalist system. Fake demand for a fake solution for a problem that does not exist the way it is portrayed. We in the US are about ready tax emitters of CO2 (cap and trade) which means it will not be long before some political nitwit will craft legislation to tax people every time they exhale.

There's enough oil for the foreseeable future. BP recently announced one of the largest oil finds ever in the Gulf of Mexico. US President Carter announced the world was nearly out of oil in the mid-1970's. He was wrong then and those that argue we are nearly out of oil are wrong now.

Third world countries have been devastated largely by tin-horn dictators and corruption. Capitalism does not serve richer countries. They are richer because of capitalism. There's a reason most developed nations have some basis in capitalism and it's not to devastate third world countries.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
1
0
So what do you want to be socialist, I work round the clock, traveeling all over the place hardly getting to see my family,so I can make my money, so there is no way I want my wealth regulated by the government. I understand there are a lot of people who are hurt by the crisis, losing jobs and their homes hell my business almost went bankrupt about 7 months ago, so I understand but the government shouldn't be robin hood.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
There were similar sentiments in the late 1930's in the immediate aftermath of the great depression in the US. Granted, what happened here then did not have nearly the global impact as what has happened this time.

In all reality, capitalism is the least worst form of a public economic system. The key is to be able to identify corruption early and act swiftly. Free market principals work reasonably well unless they are under regulated, over regulated or corrupt. I think will always be a question to determine what is the correct balance of public/private interaction? There are competing interests on either side so I think there will always be this discussion and folks will always have a different opinion on what's best.
Excellent post. The biggest problem we face is the fact that we are loosing true democracy because those with real money have an unfair advantage in policy decisions. One need only look at TARP to see it. The Goldman Sachs of the world have entirely too much impact on the lives of citizens based upon their direct access to policy decisions. Yes you have to protect commerce at times, but BIG business in whatever form has gained entirely too much power.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
franciep10 said:
So what do you want to be socialist, I work round the clock, traveeling all over the place hardly getting to see my family,so I can make my money, so there is no way I want my wealth regulated by the government. I understand there are a lot of people who are hurt by the crisis, losing jobs and their homes hell my business almost went bankrupt about 7 months ago, so I understand but the government shouldn't be robin hood.
I don't think you actually understand Socialism. It has nothing to do with working around the clock and not seeing your family. Not saying I want a pure Socialist economy, but I do like having a partially Socialist one like we have had for over 100 years.

I am not saying you are stupid or anything, just that many times, people misunderstand what Socialist principles are. They include things like regulation, etc. ANY government policy or law that affects any factor of production is Socialist in nature. Socialism is a part of command economic philosophy. In the US, we have a mixed system that primarily uses market philosophy, with certain command safeguards.
 
Apr 12, 2009
1,087
1
0
Thoughtforfood said:
I don't think you actually understand Socialism. It has nothing to do with working around the clock and not seeing your family. Not saying I want a pure Socialist economy, but I do like having a partially Socialist one like we have had for over 100 years.

I am not saying you are stupid or anything, just that many times, people misunderstand what Socialist principles are. They include things like regulation, etc. ANY government policy or law that affects any factor of production is Socialist in nature. Socialism is a part of command economic philosophy. In the US, we have a mixed system that primarily uses market philosophy, with certain command safeguards.
I mean I work my tail off for the money that I have and because of that It's difficult to see my family. I don't really understand socialism from what I understand nobody is rich or poor everybody is middle class.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
franciep10 said:
I mean I work my tail off for the money that I have and because of that It's difficult to see my family. I don't really understand socialism from what I understand nobody is rich or poor everybody is middle class.
In pure Socialism, you are basically right. However, most industrialized nations have mixed systems in which market principles are predominant, and Socialist principles are incorporated to varying levels. Few people in the US are promoting pure Socialism, and nobody in the Obama administration has serious designs on instituting that system. They do want further reforms that are Socialist in nature, but they are far from being real Socialists.

In pure Socialism, the government owns all of the factors of production, and make the economic decisions as such. However, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone makes the same money. That is Communism, and the two are not the same thing.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
In pure Socialism, you are basically right. However, most industrialized nations have mixed systems in which market principles are predominant, and Socialist principles are incorporated to varying levels. Few people in the US are promoting pure Socialism, and nobody in the Obama administration has serious designs on instituting that system. They do want further reforms that are Socialist in nature, but they are far from being real Socialists.

QUOTE]

While I can't argue what the Obama administration ultimate objectives are, the problem of following the examples of countries who have a health system that is more socialist in nature is,
it doesnt work.
I had a girlfriend in Sweden who almost died waiting in their system which is overburdened. the degradation of services in such a system is apparent. It is not possible to sustain the level of care that was originally promised,
Norway, one of the richest countries per capita and very high taxes, is unable to sustain the level of care that they provided a decade ago.
Already we are straining our individual resources to the limit and we cannot afford the changes already put in place by this administration, so we are going to proceed with principles that have been proven to be unsustainable?
no thanks.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
runninboy said:
Thoughtforfood said:
In pure Socialism, you are basically right. However, most industrialized nations have mixed systems in which market principles are predominant, and Socialist principles are incorporated to varying levels. Few people in the US are promoting pure Socialism, and nobody in the Obama administration has serious designs on instituting that system. They do want further reforms that are Socialist in nature, but they are far from being real Socialists.

QUOTE]

While I can't argue what the Obama administration ultimate objectives are, the problem of following the examples of countries who have a health system that is more socialist in nature is,
it doesnt work.
I had a girlfriend in Sweden who almost died waiting in their system which is overburdened. the degradation of services in such a system is apparent. It is not possible to sustain the level of care that was originally promised,
Norway, one of the richest countries per capita and very high taxes, is unable to sustain the level of care that they provided a decade ago.
Already we are straining our individual resources to the limit and we cannot afford the changes already put in place by this administration, so we are going to proceed with principles that have been proven to be unsustainable?
no thanks
.
I agree.

Furthermore, can anyone produce any evidence suggesting the govt of the USA can effectively and efficiently run what amounts to roughly 1/8 of our GDP? No, you can't. If fact there are numerous programs in place currently to suggest the govt will make a complete mess of this, veterans admin, Medicare/Medicaid, social security and on and on. Hell, look at ACORN. Those in favor of govt run healthcare point to corrupt corporate ceo's and somehow gloss over corrupt politicians. The major difference here is, by and large, corporate ceo's are discovered and run out of town. When's the last time that has happened in politics? Is public corruption any better than private?
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
runninboy said:
Thoughtforfood said:
In pure Socialism, you are basically right. However, most industrialized nations have mixed systems in which market principles are predominant, and Socialist principles are incorporated to varying levels. Few people in the US are promoting pure Socialism, and nobody in the Obama administration has serious designs on instituting that system. They do want further reforms that are Socialist in nature, but they are far from being real Socialists.

QUOTE]

While I can't argue what the Obama administration ultimate objectives are, the problem of following the examples of countries who have a health system that is more socialist in nature is,
it doesnt work.
I had a girlfriend in Sweden who almost died waiting in their system which is overburdened. the degradation of services in such a system is apparent. It is not possible to sustain the level of care that was originally promised,
Norway, one of the richest countries per capita and very high taxes, is unable to sustain the level of care that they provided a decade ago.
Already we are straining our individual resources to the limit and we cannot afford the changes already put in place by this administration, so we are going to proceed with principles that have been proven to be unsustainable?
no thanks.
I don't think it's nearly as bad as you are portraying it here. I'd venture to guess that most, if not all, healthcare systems are struggling to maintain the level of care they were 10ish years ago.

With no data to support my supposition, I'd offer that our populations are growing faster than their respective infrastructures are expanding, etc. For that matter, you could apply the same thought process to traffic!

I'm sorry to hear about your girlfriend in Sweden having issues. This should not have happened to her because if the issues become remotely life threatening the patient is "moved to the front of the line" in this system.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
runninboy said:
While I can't argue what the Obama administration ultimate objectives are, the problem of following the examples of countries who have a health system that is more socialist in nature is,
it doesnt work.
I had a girlfriend in Sweden who almost died waiting in their system which is overburdened. the degradation of services in such a system is apparent. It is not possible to sustain the level of care that was originally promised,
Norway, one of the richest countries per capita and very high taxes, is unable to sustain the level of care that they provided a decade ago.
Already we are straining our individual resources to the limit and we cannot afford the changes already put in place by this administration, so we are going to proceed with principles that have been proven to be unsustainable?
no thanks.
Again you prove inept at discourse. You had a girlfriend and that is your measure? Well, here is one that doesn't rely on your sister's girlfriend's brother's cousin: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Also note that if you went to those countries and tried to take it away, you would find that you would be asked to leave. Dang. Not a good day for you. Maybe you could do some readin' and writin' and rythmatic' and come back when you know what you are talking about?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
I agree.

Furthermore, can anyone produce any evidence suggesting the govt of the USA can effectively and efficiently run what amounts to roughly 1/8 of our GDP? No, you can't. If fact there are numerous programs in place currently to suggest the govt will make a complete mess of this, veterans admin, Medicare/Medicaid, social security and on and on. Hell, look at ACORN. Those in favor of govt run healthcare point to corrupt corporate ceo's and somehow gloss over corrupt politicians. The major difference here is, by and large, corporate ceo's are discovered and run out of town. When's the last time that has happened in politics? Is public corruption any better than private?
The day Cheney left town.
 
Aug 3, 2009
176
0
0
In a nutshell,corruption has gone off the charts.Manufacturing has gone the way of the Chinaman.Corruption has infiltrated every aspect of our society,from small local government to the White House.From the local bank to Wall Street investment banks.GREED without a doubt is the prime motivator.Morality has been pushed off into the ravine.The problem is that the pie has been greatly reduced with American Companies selling out to overseas labor.I saw an interview years ago on 60 minutes with a person who made his fortune by convincing American Companies to Mfg.overseas.Mike Wallace asked him if he felt guilty about whoring jobs overseas.He said no and its made him millions.:eek:Because the pie has been reduced i.e. less tax base etc. more hands in a smaller till sticks out like a sore thumb.I bet there are arguments now over who gets what.Our days as mfg. giant are over.High tech jobs created here eventually wind up overseas.Remember,all those lost jobs are affecting the Wal-Mart shopper,the people who actually drive the economy.Before credit cards came readily available our country was financially sound with resources to back our dollar.Our economy now is nothing more than an enter key on a computer.Its smoke and mirrors.I believe Henry Paulson is enormously responsible for a large share of this countries financial downfall.It was he after all who was a big part in developing the credit default swap.I could go on but I said in a nutshell.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
The day Cheney left town.
Ok, what about Frank, Dodd, Geithner and Charlie Rangel? I mean Rangel chairs the house, ways and means committee. Frank is either on or chairs senate banking.... These guys are STILL making policy. Does that not freak you out a little?

Getting bad public officials out of office is like trying to fire a bad public school teacher with tenure.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,703
2
0
broken chain said:
Chinaman.
At the risk of offending some of our forum members, it's actually possible to make your point without using derogatory nomenclature. Keep it civil.;)

Thanks for your cooperation.

RDV4ROUBAIX
 
Thoughtforfood said:
Again you prove inept at discourse. You had a girlfriend and that is your measure? Well, here is one that doesn't rely on your sister's girlfriend's brother's cousin: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Also note that if you went to those countries and tried to take it away, you would find that you would be asked to leave. Dang. Not a good day for you. Maybe you could do some readin' and writin' and rythmatic' and come back when you know what you are talking about?
Well it's pretty clear from that list that the WHO is a french puppet that is trying to take down the greatest Health Industry in the world just as the AFLD is conspiring against the greatest Cyclist in the world. Damn the french I say.
 
RDV4ROUBAIX said:
At the risk of offending some of our forum members, it's actually possible to make your point without using derogatory nomenclature. Keep it civil.;)

Thanks for your cooperation.

RDV4ROUBAIX
This had not been posted yet when I started crafting my above post. Hopefully although one apparently can not use the term "Chinaman" one can still say "damn the french" without offending anyone important.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,703
2
0
I would just air on the side of caution when using terms like that, you wouldn't talk like that in public, so it doesn't make it ok here. It's best just not to use them at all. I don't know any of my Asian friends who would take kindly to that term, no matter the context.

broken chain actually makes some very good points. I would add that the Fed Res Act was the beginning of the end of our financial system, just took almost a hundred years to completely fall apart, and more than once. We may see some recovery, but the dollar is going to be worthless in the next decade or less.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
Again you prove inept at discourse. You had a girlfriend and that is your measure? Well, here is one that doesn't rely on your sister's girlfriend's brother's cousin: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Also note that if you went to those countries and tried to take it away, you would find that you would be asked to leave. Dang. Not a good day for you. Maybe you could do some readin' and writin' and rythmatic' and come back when you know what you are talking about?
And better yet the list that TFF linked to features a large ad on the right inviting folks to sign a petition to "Save their Health Care" and at the bottom features the slogan "Hands Off My Health Care". I guess they figure 37th in the world is all we can hope for?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS