-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why americans are so scared of socialdemocracy?
- Thread starter Cygnus X-1
- Start date
- Status
j_k_redtail
Member
The average income in the US is high, but the income disparity in the US is extremely wide. That's a significant factor that has to be included in the evaluation of our two systems.Korey said:
The American public would rather burn $100 in a fire then allow $1 of their money to get into the hands of a minority/poor person/athiest/undesirable etc etc.
Now they might part with that dollar if it is done through their church so they can personally view the person grovel and determine if they are worthy and then receive praise from their fellows for being so generous.
Now they might part with that dollar if it is done through their church so they can personally view the person grovel and determine if they are worthy and then receive praise from their fellows for being so generous.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
That's silly. Everyone knows that athiests are all rich due to their collective deal with Satan.Dorrin said:
ignorant fear of the scary unknown.
ironically, though, swaths of social/religious/political American conservatives who automatically reject any importation of 'Europeanness' across the Atlantic have hooked onto their sentiment of Islamaphobia (although, thankfully so far, it's not quite as vitriolic or transparent).
ironically, though, swaths of social/religious/political American conservatives who automatically reject any importation of 'Europeanness' across the Atlantic have hooked onto their sentiment of Islamaphobia (although, thankfully so far, it's not quite as vitriolic or transparent).
fortified_concept
Banned
Xyphie said:
Because you have been enjoying the great education, health care system, social services and social justice for years and you thought "damn these socialists for thinking we like these things". I bet you think your country would be so much better with ghettos, horribly educated citizens and people bankrupting to pay their health care bills or dying in shitty low-funded public hospitals. Jesus Christ, some people are so ignorant that they dig their own graves without ever realizing it.
Shanadeus said:
Not true. There are plenty of countries in the emerging markets that are more than happy to receive foreign investment and companies do in fact leave if the opportunities are better elsewhere.
One of my foreign bank accounts for instance currently earns an 8% annual interest rate, which is down from 15% thanks to the economic downturn. What's the interest rate on anyone in Canada or the US?
Ships fly flags of convenience leading to most of them flying flags of Liberia and Monrovia. Over 50% of US public corporations are incorporated in Delaware due to favorable taxation laws.
Obama tried to make corporate inversions a bit more annoying last year but it still doesn't stop companies that I've invested in, like Weatherford International, originally from the US, in moving to Bermuda and then Switzerland.
International companies are international and they will be wherever is most favorable since they are supposed to have no nationalist ties.
The belief that countries that provide favorable climates for the wealthy are unstable or dangerous is patently false. SE Asia has seen the rise of many millionaires of late, and countries like Malaysia are seeing corporate investment rise hand over fist. Sunpower for instance is a US solar company it's building plants in Malaysia to compete with the Chinese.
Where do you get the idea that it will be too expensive to continue the process of outsourcing in a world of increasing global traffic and technological improvements?
We are not talking about slight differences here:
http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/4004559-1.html
"Total compensation costs for 71 million Chinese production workers employed in rural manufacturing plants was an estimated $75 per month, according to Banister. Subtract out social insurance costs and their take-home pay is about $70 per month or around $837 per year. On a purchasing power parity basis, they would be making less than $2 an hour in the United States, or $3,890 a year. "
While increasing demands will certainly increase the wages of the Chinese laborer, the gap itself may likely never be overcome and there will always be yet another country or group of countries that are or want to be where China was. The Chinese themselves are aggressively increasing it's connections with Africa ans they produce and sell in African countries to the point that Chinese languages are now an important language of trade on the continent.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KG14Ad02.html
Ultimately, there is no way for the Western laborer to compete unless the workforce becomes specialized or the worker concedes to fewer benefits.
blame space said:
wait... are you saying somewhere (ANYWHERE) it's illegal to do so?
In regards to the question - this could be asked a thousand different ways but it boils down to "Why doesn't culture X agree with culture Y on Issue 1?" Different countries are always going to try a variety of policies sometimes because of cultural pressures, sometimes a particularly strong social movement, sometimes it's purely a political move by a particular party hoping to score points with an interest group. It's worth noting though that the US on the whole isn't doing particularly bad, although we're in a down turn right now our economy is still the gold standard of the world overall. Why SHOULD we change? For that matter, why shouldn't social democracies more closely emulate the US system?
Princess Carl
Member
Venomgxt said:
so wrong its sad
fortified_concept
Banned
Armada said:
Interesting. Have they started bullshiting the public yet that the country needs more austerity measures asap using as the boogeyman Greece trying to convince you that "you'll follow its path if the country doesn't take more measures"? This tactic has been used this far in 6-7 EU countries by the right-wing pricks.
United States known as the land of opportunity, where your dreams can come true or you can fall hard, that's what's driven the progress that has made our country as prosperous as it has. How many technologies have we invented that are being used all over the world?j_k_redtail said:
Our system facilitates people to work harder to get what they want. To "make it". If you don't work hard, don't have any good ideas, and aren't talented, you'll live an average life. And if you're born poor, you can get out of that if you make the right decisions and work hard enough.
Like you said, there are pros and cons to each system, this is the one that works for us and arguably has more pros from the way things have turned out.
I don't see that many people flocking to Norway, and yet America has a huge immigration problem. Maybe that's one of the reasons Norway can sustain itself with its current system without any problems? I honestly can't even locate Norway on a map. So...there you go.
Frank the Great
Banned
Fuck political ideologies. Pragmatism ftw.
fortified_concept said:
Yep, they've basically been saying that if the opposition are elected we'll go the way of Greece and the sad part is that people seem to be buying it. The opposition has had a pretty vast lead in the polls for much of these past 4 years but since the crisis in Greece, the polls have turned. Election is in two weeks. Sigh. I'll do my part at least and vote for a party in the redgreen coalition.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
KevinCow said:
This. Existing "social democracies" have very little racial fragmentation.
Also, it's not entirely certain that "social democratic" economic policies (i.e. a huge welfare state) would be beneficial for the United States. They could retard economic growth. Some (like unreasonably hefty unemployment benefits, stringent labor regulations, etc.) could contribute to unemployment.
Blackace said:
Oh I completely agree that you can't equate a political/economic system within a society to whether racism exists there, I was just pointing out such a thing to be presumptuous. Although, i don't think I want to accept that racism is a part of the human condition, that is, its something engraved and we can't ever be free from.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Jeels said:
I wish I could agree with you.. But even people of the same "race" find reasons to enslave and harm each other for no other reason than they are slightly different.. Africans did to each other (still do), England and Ireland.. shit even black Americans do it to each other for things like skin tone..
Blackace said:
Heck, historically the European slave trade would not have been NEARLY as "successful" as it was if African slavers weren't willing to capture and sell their own people to them at a tidy profit. Dahomey and the other cities along the slave coast were not exactly European constructs.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Gaborn said:
yup that is true and true.. off topic, not that you are doing it please don't think I am implying that you are, but I hate it when people use this as a way to soften the blow of slavery... People do this with slaves, Holocaust, Japanese craziness during WWII and a ton of other crap..
But the biggest point is that "hate" will bubble up no matter what, if everyone was the exact same color, humans would still find a way to single out people and hate them..
SleepyJohn11
Member
Then maybe it's not just race, but some urge to group and control anyone in general to generate some worth or relevancy. It's just that the race concept been around quite for some time and appearances are pretty much the easiest way to categorize folks.Blackace said:
Shoot, out of curiosity, I look at 4Chan's /int/ board and I saw others arguing which "white race" was less so and more black. They even made tier lists. :lol
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
SleepyJohn11 said:
"Race" is the easiest way to break people apart.
It is easier to spot a black man or Asian man at a glance than it is to tell which god a person worships..
Well we all know that Irish folks are the blacks of Europe!
Blackace said:
I completely agree with you. History has context, but that doesn't erase the true horror of what was done.
Absolutely as well. Heck, look at how a large number of the colonies came to the "New World" several of them were Europeans escaping religious persecution. Essentially if you deviate in any way from a cultural norm or are "different" in any way someone is going to hate you.
You know, with all this talk about how the founding fathers hated things like the income tax and wouldn't want to take money from hard working rich folk, coupled with the propaganda spread about Europeans being filthy socialists, I'm quite fascinated at how the U.S. was EVER able to achieve things like SS, Medicare, and top tax rates between 50% - 94% in the period between the 30s and 1986. It's just astonishing. Most teabaggers fragile little heads would explode at such a thought.
An idea I've toyed with would be more programs targeted at low-income children . The biggest problem with capitalism, I think, is that among two equally intelligent and capable individuals, one given much less good nutrition, stimulus, opportunities and capital may end up being radically different in terms of success, which A) seems unfair, and B) underutilizes human resources which hurts us all. So I think that funding early childhood education, nutrition programs, etc. are all really important. Of course, these programs have to be funded somehow, and there would be a big short-term growth trade-off in terms of debt, inflation, etc. if we took this seriously. I still think it would be worth it though.
Captain Sparrow
Banned
Because our country was not built on such an ideology. Our country could never survive on socialism. We're too big for such a change.
Capitalism is good for us IMO if we regulate. Every time we elect a Republican, they declare that the rich are paying too much taxes or give them some kind of other break to "trickle down" the wealth, which has never happened. I'm not saying that we need to put the rich back in the 90% tax bracket, but we need to look out for middle America more.
Government exists only to maintain order. Otherwise people do what they want, and who ever decides to do what is best for everyone? The rich should stay rich, but not that rich.
Capitalism is good for us IMO if we regulate. Every time we elect a Republican, they declare that the rich are paying too much taxes or give them some kind of other break to "trickle down" the wealth, which has never happened. I'm not saying that we need to put the rich back in the 90% tax bracket, but we need to look out for middle America more.
Government exists only to maintain order. Otherwise people do what they want, and who ever decides to do what is best for everyone? The rich should stay rich, but not that rich.
JzeroT1437
Member
Manmademan said:
As a white male who just finished a year-long professional job search in the nation's largest corporate city (NYC), the "White Male" demographic connection to success is dated bullshit. Currently 8% of the nation's women are unemployed versus 10% of the country's men--a figure which has consistantly varied between 4-2 percentage points in favor of women over the past year--and the bureau of labor doesn't take any race group into consideration other than "White", "Black", and "Hispanic". Having temped under several companies in various temp agencies over the last year, I can honestly say diversity is more than alive in the workplace--most of the accountants at Freshfields, Bruckhaus, and Derringer's New York office didn't even have US Citizenship when I started, and they were full time, salaried employees with no contract expiration!
The truth is, it's hard all around, black, white, male and female. Only the rich are safe.
MikeE21286
Member
Branduil said:
:lol yeah, kinda this.
CrocMother
Banned
Teh Hamburglar said:
Why still gives a fuck about the founding fathers? They had slaves, and I'm sure they would have fought and died for that right too. Too much time has passed to put any stock into the opinions of 18th century nobles.
I'm pretty sure for a good part of the US, it's the fact that "social" is part of "socialdemocracy" and there is also social in "socialist."
We've been teaching our students that socialism is bad for a loooong long time. The whole Cold War mentality still exists in many textbooks and is passed down generation to generation. The propaganda during the Cold War was excellent as well. If you've noticed on many interviews, people call Obama "socialist" as an insult, and go against anything that could possibly partially be labeled socialist. Even when we still take advantage of libraries, public school systems, medicare, social security, etc.
But hey, if it's socialist, it's bad!
We've been teaching our students that socialism is bad for a loooong long time. The whole Cold War mentality still exists in many textbooks and is passed down generation to generation. The propaganda during the Cold War was excellent as well. If you've noticed on many interviews, people call Obama "socialist" as an insult, and go against anything that could possibly partially be labeled socialist. Even when we still take advantage of libraries, public school systems, medicare, social security, etc.
But hey, if it's socialist, it's bad!
unless we already use it and enjoy the benefits, then it's AMURRICAN!
Eteric Rice
Member
MikeE21286 said:
In America we have people living on foodstamps (and driving around in really nice cars and shit). Same deal.
Escape Goat
Member
BenThereGamer said:
Slavery was a concession given to southern states in order to get the constitution ratified. Believe it or not our entire constitution is based on "18th century nobles' opinions". Guess we should just scrap it and start over? I mean its really old.
MikeE21286
Member
Eteric Rice said:
Yeah, I understand that. But I think the point of that thread is pointing out complete and utter abuse of social welfare services (and very much beyond what Americans are provided in terms of social services).
Personally, I think Europe (and other countries) are able to perform better in certain areas because of their size, uniformity and length of existence.
It wasn't but 150 years ago that America was a clusterfuck of states and territories that had wildly different ideals and social mores. It's been a very slow process into forming some sort of national identity. Which is why many still hang onto the same ideals that our ancestors had during the westward expansion.
The next 100 years is where we begin to mature (as the baby boomers die out and our populace begins to become even more of a melting pot) and our identity will begin to take hold.
It wasn't but 150 years ago that America was a clusterfuck of states and territories that had wildly different ideals and social mores. It's been a very slow process into forming some sort of national identity. Which is why many still hang onto the same ideals that our ancestors had during the westward expansion.
The next 100 years is where we begin to mature (as the baby boomers die out and our populace begins to become even more of a melting pot) and our identity will begin to take hold.
ChoklitReign
Member
I'm not saying the Founders would have opposed it, given the chance if today they could see its benefits, but it runs contrary to what they fought for. Britain completely oppressed Americans' rights under a benevolent dictatorship--pretty much the opposite of a social democracy (either way, they couldn't have guns 
). Obviously it shows how much government has changed its role in 200 years but it's not something that most Americans have noticed or want. Personally, I wouldn't want all of the benefits/consequences of a social democracy (I loathe unions, strict gun control, and deficit spending) but if Americans can elect a string of Obamas I could see slow progress being made toward many of the benefits of Europeans, especially workers' rights and regulating corporations given many Americans' feelings about the economy.
). Obviously it shows how much government has changed its role in 200 years but it's not something that most Americans have noticed or want. Personally, I wouldn't want all of the benefits/consequences of a social democracy (I loathe unions, strict gun control, and deficit spending) but if Americans can elect a string of Obamas I could see slow progress being made toward many of the benefits of Europeans, especially workers' rights and regulating corporations given many Americans' feelings about the economy.BolognaSoup
Member
Manmademan said:
So, like Oprah, right?
soundscream
Member
BolognaSoup said:
I agree that is a weak argument but come on man.
Masta_Killah said:
An exception to a rule doesn't mean the rule is entirely incorrect. For example, Madame C.J. Walker, a black woman of the South in the mid to late 19th century, was able to become a millionaire. Doesn't change the fact that the rest of her fellow black men and women weren't so fortunate.
In a society where a significant chunk of one's net worth is passed down generationally (property for example) and people are unlikely to escape the social class they were born into, the typical minority is going to fair worst than the typical white person more times than not. There's obviously a lot of exceptions to this phenomenon and things are fortunately changing for the better, but it's still true.
- Status