i think its quiet funny that some people in this thread use arguments in the likes of america has to defend other countries, the things about the wars etc, since i study history and these subjects interest me a lot, do americans fail to see that a lot of conflicts going on in the world today are products of things they have started in the past ?
-
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
Byakuya769
Member
Korey said:
Very good question. Because it is likely the various "other" races that bring down countries in regards to their performance.
polyh3dron
Banned
Bu bu bu bu bu but TEH CONSTITUTION!!
Combichristoffersen said:Don't forget fish. We sell a shitton of fish too. And electrical power.
And weapons, but we never talk about that in public since we want everyone to believe that we're a peace-loving nation of baby seal-huggers who oppose all warfare.
Uh. Without social democracy (and the Marshall help, and later on our oil resources) we probably wouldn't be where we are today. Remember when FrP, a conservative-liberal party, wanted to sell all Norwegian offshore oil drilling rights in the 70s for 10 billion NKR? Had we done that, we would've lost out on approx. 2250-2300 billion NKR
Cybernetics at NTNU have strong connections with norwegian weapon industries. They have some cool equipment, but I'm ethically torn on if I should support them or not. On one hand, they make weapons more efficient and precise, minimizing collateral damage. On the other hand, they basically blow up all the awesome stuff, but that is cool to in some absurd way.
Back on topic.
Both social democratic and capitalism are awesome in their own way, and as long they maintain a sense of stability, people are going to root for them. Doesn't matter if one option is better then the other, as long as the current option feels safe.
America founded as a battle against oppression is a myth.
Let's be objective here, the American revolution was an act conducted by smugglers and tax evaders who wished to conquer lands beyond the proclamation line, lands which were not their own.
This was the single reason for the American revolution, pure self-interest. Laid out like that it is to many people abhorrent. That is one view of it and it's very different to the fairytale battle against "tyranny". Counter is that American colonies had no political representation even though they paid taxes to the Crown.
This is old ground but critical to the question posed in this thread. The country was founded by people being, in the crudest sense complete dickheads.
Prosperity of America
A separate continent, afforded natural protection by two oceans from the major powers of the time, rich in resources - fertile, land, minerals and metals, oil and timber. You put any European country of that period into the same situation and the result would be the same. Superpower. The prosperity of America has nothing to do with the politics of America or the ideology, at the base level it was no different from the UK at the time since Americans were and still are for the most part Europeans. The prosperity comes down to the accessible wealth of the land.
Immigration to the US
Primary motivator for immigrants to the US was fortune in the new world. Nothing more nothing less. The numbers who moved for this reason simply dwarf those who were genuinely fleeing "oppression" in Europe. This isn't a new concept. Europe is generally densely populated, opportunity being slimmer because people have already laid claim to the majority of the resources.
American Defense Spending
Europe has nuclear weapons. In the era of nuclear weapons we require no protection. The US defence budget is a massive waste of resources that would be better spent on your infrastructure to promote future growth, rather than growth through a barrel of a gun - a battle you are destined to lose against the Chinese and eventually the Indians.
Abandoning Pragmatism
Even given the founding principles of the country, the political spectrum was never as blinded as it is today. A rise of neo-liberalism coupled with the demonisation of anything remotely left wing erring from the McCarthy era throughout the Cold War is the cause of American's rejecting social democratic principles flat out. These people will end the country. The governments that ran the United States prior to the 1970s were largely pragmatic in their approach willing to give both sides of the coin a toss. Even still, it did take a complete collapse of the entire country (Great Depression ) before they did something new.
A religious attitude to economics will always end in failure. No system is perfect and no system is inherently superior to the other, it depends on what you wish to achieve. Economic efficiency comes at the cost of income inequality. Social stability comes at the cost of economic inefficiency.
I would prefer to live in Europe rather than America and New Zealand above all else but that is entirely personal. I tend to find that the majority of people, European's tending to have experienced both sides of the coin, slant the same way.
Let's be objective here, the American revolution was an act conducted by smugglers and tax evaders who wished to conquer lands beyond the proclamation line, lands which were not their own.
This was the single reason for the American revolution, pure self-interest. Laid out like that it is to many people abhorrent. That is one view of it and it's very different to the fairytale battle against "tyranny". Counter is that American colonies had no political representation even though they paid taxes to the Crown.
This is old ground but critical to the question posed in this thread. The country was founded by people being, in the crudest sense complete dickheads.
Prosperity of America
A separate continent, afforded natural protection by two oceans from the major powers of the time, rich in resources - fertile, land, minerals and metals, oil and timber. You put any European country of that period into the same situation and the result would be the same. Superpower. The prosperity of America has nothing to do with the politics of America or the ideology, at the base level it was no different from the UK at the time since Americans were and still are for the most part Europeans. The prosperity comes down to the accessible wealth of the land.
Immigration to the US
Primary motivator for immigrants to the US was fortune in the new world. Nothing more nothing less. The numbers who moved for this reason simply dwarf those who were genuinely fleeing "oppression" in Europe. This isn't a new concept. Europe is generally densely populated, opportunity being slimmer because people have already laid claim to the majority of the resources.
American Defense Spending
Europe has nuclear weapons. In the era of nuclear weapons we require no protection. The US defence budget is a massive waste of resources that would be better spent on your infrastructure to promote future growth, rather than growth through a barrel of a gun - a battle you are destined to lose against the Chinese and eventually the Indians.
Abandoning Pragmatism
Even given the founding principles of the country, the political spectrum was never as blinded as it is today. A rise of neo-liberalism coupled with the demonisation of anything remotely left wing erring from the McCarthy era throughout the Cold War is the cause of American's rejecting social democratic principles flat out. These people will end the country. The governments that ran the United States prior to the 1970s were largely pragmatic in their approach willing to give both sides of the coin a toss. Even still, it did take a complete collapse of the entire country (Great Depression ) before they did something new.
A religious attitude to economics will always end in failure. No system is perfect and no system is inherently superior to the other, it depends on what you wish to achieve. Economic efficiency comes at the cost of income inequality. Social stability comes at the cost of economic inefficiency.
I would prefer to live in Europe rather than America and New Zealand above all else but that is entirely personal. I tend to find that the majority of people, European's tending to have experienced both sides of the coin, slant the same way.
Err what?Byakuya769 said:
xbhaskarx said:
Before anyone even mentioned Norway xbhaskarx called it correctly :lol 7/10 of the countries on that list are small homogeneous white western Euro countries. Without any of the same social problems that the US have to deal with when it comes to having 310,000,000 of the world's most diverse population in terms of race, religion, class, etc.
Cygnus X-1
Member
I'm back. Just give me the the time to read the comments. Thanks anyway for taking part to the discussion.
The we are a bigger country argument is a little weak.
You are only a bigger country because you let more people in. Without the population there to work the resources you wouldn't generate the wealth for the few that you have. Due to the diverse population and a concentration of wealth within the top 5% you have lower average standard of living.
You can't have it both ways.
You are only a bigger country because you let more people in. Without the population there to work the resources you wouldn't generate the wealth for the few that you have. Due to the diverse population and a concentration of wealth within the top 5% you have lower average standard of living.
You can't have it both ways.
Cygnus X-1
Member
Socreges said:
What a nice comment. Thank you.
because it sucks. I get paid less money for somenoe to not work. Best country in the world is the place where I get taxed the least and government doesn''t do stupid shit like this
http://threadcollaborative.com/threadpost/2009/09/congress-created-dust-bowl/
http://threadcollaborative.com/threadpost/2009/09/congress-created-dust-bowl/
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Ripclawe said:
Have you been to europe? Here in the Netherlands, in Germany and in UK I can attest to there being a whole LOAD of rich as fuck people with luxury everything.
Plus you know, that mediocrity is better than your mediocrity. And you can just get rich as well.
haha you must be a kiwi to say that. Or wait, did you mean you would rather live in NZ than all else? It reads like you wouldn't go to America and certainly not NZ.
I'm from NZ, I ran away to Europe, it's better IMO more free time and better money plus access to a massive amout of cultures with only a train ride. My father was sent to USA to work, they were paid well and everything was taken care of for them, but they were extremely disappointed to be forced to leave Maastricht in the Netherlands.
timetokill
Banned
EmSeta said:
That seems to be a comparison of the whole of the United States with various cherry-picked countries (mostly from Europe, but Canada also), all of which are much smaller population-wise and tend to have more homogenous populations.
Maybe you linked the wrong one? I think he meant US vs Europe as a whole. One that includes, you know, Greece, Slovenia, Lithuania, Italy, etc? And averages them with the more wealthy countries of Europe?
I'd be curious in that comparison.
They take money out of your check every week for unemployment insurance. It would be different if you didn't put any money and still expected benefits.Cuu said:
The only thing that pisses me off is that single people usually pay more taxes than those with kids or who are married.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
I didn't know Alan Simpson posted on GAF.......What say you Mr. Simpson, let's just get rid of SS and let 20 million seniors just die in their own squalor? Send them to some newly created poorhouses?wizword said:
The fact you would even mention getting rid of SS "completely", makes me sick.
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
What's so difficult to understand? I'm not interested in subsidizing other people's entitled attitudes. We shoudl be encouraging people to do for themselves rather than seek the help of a seemingly benevolent entity that exists above and around us. I think that, largely, government should be constrained and not let to run loose lest it devour our freedom and productivity. I think the US government needs to be taken to with a meat cleaver in order to dramatically scale back what is essentially decades of waste and misappropriation of taxpayer dollars. We'll have to bring torches to seal the wounds - government is like a hydra in that it would just recover and rear its awful and forceful head once more.
My point being is that if people are not mindful and continue to understand that government exists by the grace of the people, those same people will find that they suddenly exist by the grace of government.
My point being is that if people are not mindful and continue to understand that government exists by the grace of the people, those same people will find that they suddenly exist by the grace of government.
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
Darkshier said:
Is there something unreasonable about ending the mirage of Social Security? Right now we all pay for others, yet when we come to the same point at which they are now the money will not be available for us in the same fashion. It's called a ponzi scheme!
The money isn't there, the surpluses have been looted by government and the deficits start now. What's your plan?
I don't think anyone would be suggesting that we eliminate Social Security tomorrow. Obviously people currently on benefits and those soon to receive benefits would likely be allowed to continue on that path, but at a certain point the program will not be economically viable any longer.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
DownLikeBCPowder said:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3262
Several key points emerge from the new report:
* The trustees continue to estimate that the trust funds will be exhausted in 2037 the same date that they forecast in last years report.
* Even after 2037, Social Security could pay more than three-fourths of scheduled benefits using its annual tax income. Those who fear that Social Security wont be around when todays young workers retire misunderstand the trustees projections.
Also from that link.....
The revenue loss over the next 75 years just from extending the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 the top 2 percent of Americans would be about as large as the entire Social Security shortfall over this period (see Figure 1). Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.
What money isn't there again?
Oh and how about giving some amnesty to all the illegal immigrants in the USA right now, so they can start paying into SS. Let's not forget about the SS cap either....
Also, do you think by getting rid of SS, Americans are just going to magically start saving up for retirement? They won't and it is one of the reasons we have SS and will continue to have it. I would much rather pay a small portion of my paycheck, so that people aren't dying in poorhouses or out on the streets.
timetokill said:
That's a much less reasonable comparison. Your comparison would effectively be "US vs. Average Industrialized nation," which is still meaningful but doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The US clearly provides more upward mobility than most nations in the world.
The point is that there are a significant number of industrialized nations which do allow more upward mobility.
Let's say the US is, oh, in the 85th percentile of countries in regards to economic opportunities. That's very good!
His point: the countries in the 86th -- 99th percentiles are even better, and they seem to mostly be social democracies.
Your point: if you take the unweighted average of all European nations, the US (probably) is better than average.
Your point does not invalidate his. It's entirely possible to agree that the US is above average while simultaneously admitting that there are countries that do it better than us and that we can learn from them.
Byakuya769
Member
Korey said:
"Err what," indeed. I agree with your use of the "homogenous country" argument.
SomeDude said:
I don't know about that, but all I know is that the war in 1812 was a very lucky break for the US since the Crown was conducting a war on multiple fronts with the greatest foe of the time, Napolean. If it weren't for him many believe it's odds on we'd be talking about the Royal Colonies of the America's today.
Cygnus X-1
Member
avaya said:
Nice remarks.
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
Darkshier said:
So far I understand that you have no problem taking other's wealth and putting it wherever you deem fit. I don't trust any economic forecast beyond 10 years, much less decades.
I don't know about flat out amnesty, but I am not at all opposed to creating a more streamlined and user friendly immigration system. I think there are many hardworking people that have a genuine interest in climbing the economic ladder, building their families, and contributing economically and socially to our communities across the nation.
Sadly I see your immediate concern for their legalization is to seize percentages of their income to pay for other's entitled behavior. This is further implied by the latter statement.
Maybe it's not the government's job to ensure your future stability? It's certainly not my job. By extension you are claiming it is my responsibility to take care of you.
Perhaps if we encouraged people rather than softly whispering into their ear that the government will take care of them for this need and that need, you would perhaps find that people are miraculously capable of doing things for themselves.
Sure it's not your responsibility to take care of someone else. However you do not live in a vacuum. The more people that end up below the poverty line the greater the social unrest. The more social unrest the greater the likelihood that society which protects your claim on what you have breaks down.
Social Security isn't charity. There is a very good reason it exists.
Most people will not save for their retirement. The economy is founded on consumption. This is the very reason SS exists, since the fallout is potentially devastating.
Social Security isn't charity. There is a very good reason it exists.
Most people will not save for their retirement. The economy is founded on consumption. This is the very reason SS exists, since the fallout is potentially devastating.
avaya said:
Also a good point.
I think, above anything else, what one should take from Avaya's posts is that there is no correct answer: just give and take. Take away government regulations (good!), expect increased social inequalities (bad). There are countless examples of this.
One such example, shown here, is that our economy is built on consumption: it's a concept that we are inundated with from a very young age. Buying American products is described as a patriotic duty: it could not get more explicit.
And this cultural curio can be a good thing: it helps drive the engine of our economy, and the American consumer's ravenous purchasing habits have assisted in the country's overall ascension to power. However, an obvious consequence of a cultural imperative to buy is that people will tend to save less. We can ask people to save more, and that might alleviate the need for something like Social Security, but it also would retard the growth of our economic engine, as people will by definition consume less.
So take your pick: you can't have it both ways. It seems apparent to me that the extremes are poor choices, in most cases.
ChoklitReign
Member
Zombie King George? Don't make me grab the shotgun.avaya said:
Seriously, what the fuck.
Because obviously social democracy is shitty.
Look at Sweden, a complete piece of shit country, but somehow all countries in the world are even worse, except for a few who are only as bad.
Look at Sweden, a complete piece of shit country, but somehow all countries in the world are even worse, except for a few who are only as bad.
Also, thanks to the fat guy for making a complete fucking joke of a K-12 education, especially considering the country to our east.
i get more and more the feeling that today the majority of american people are basically politcally dumb and have no idea about nothing and not able to understand what is really going on in their country. I truly believe that in 10 to 15 years america will bankrupt and the economy almost dead.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
DownLikeBCPowder said:
Well Avaya had a pretty good response to this above, probably better than I can write out.
To touch on some of your points though...Yes, I do think wealth needs to be redistributed in the USA, too much in concentrated at the top and it's fucking over the middle and lower classes.
Also, my concern for illegal immigrant legalization, isn't just for financial gain. We are a nation built on immigrants and it is a damn shame that we don't accept people who want to come to this country to make a better life, with open arms. Full amnesty and streamline the process for any future immigrants.
My last comment, is that I do believe it is up to the government, to ensure the future stability of it's people. I believe we need the 2nd Bill of Rights in the USA, more so than ever before in history.
I don't expect you to agree with any of that of course, it's just how I feel.
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
Darkshier said:
Why not? I almost completely agree with your immigration standpoint.
Very good point.avaya said:
I want to be able to live in a society without poverty stricken people having to resort to robbing houses to eat. In an anarchist society, I would have to pay for building walls, hiring private security guards, having an armored vehicle - it's kinda like being rich in a corrupt third world country!
I'd rather put some of my money towards creating a more stable society, that will also take care of me if something terrible happens.
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
EmSeta said:
And there's nothing wrong with taking care of people to whom "something happens". I am not opposed in any fashion to the taking care of those who are truly in need. It is those that are capable that I am concerned about and I have said as much. I fail to understand the response to my post which can be characterized as "they will become poverty striken and line the streets".
I like the idea of abolishing SS and having every person be responsible for their own retirement. Yet at the same time, I realize that the average retirement savings of an American household is below what would equate to a livable yearly wage upon retirement. There are a lot of statistics floating around, so I won't cherry pick any particular one, but if you look it up you'll find that the average American is woefully unprepared for retirement.DownLikeBCPowder said:
You have far more faith in the average American than I if you believe the abolition of SS will be the motivating factor for Americans to save up a sufficient amount for retirement. Ideally, a system of personal responsibility for retirement planning is the best system, but presently I believe this system would not work in practice.
And then there are always the cases where a family practices diligent financial planning and ends up the victim of circumstance. There are a lot of families now that are nearing retirement age who had large chunks of stock market investments wiped out while the equity in their house simultaneously took a nosedive. I suppose the answer to those situations is that without SS they could continue working past retirement age, but then again, it is actually good thing to have older workers leave the workforce so that new workers can be funneled in.
I don't have the answer, but I think a system predicated on putting your faith in the average American is probably a recipe for disaster.
Lagspike_exe
Member
ChoklitReign said:
Made me laugh. :lol
avaya said:
Yes. Furthermore i would like to note that regardless of the reasons responsible for the two world wars, whether they were a consequence of the natural progression of European history or not, the united states greatly benefited from the fact that Europeans couldn't quite seem to get along for the better part of the 20th century. Effectively bleeding to death the USA's main competition without any damage to it's internal infrastructure and allowing the the implementation of imperialistic roots in Europe. I am not bringing this up to discredit the historical achievements of the united states as a nation. But as a transplant to the US , i can't help but feel repulsed by the self-appreciating propaganda permeating every segment of American enterprise when in fact many geo-political factors can rationally explain this country's prosperity without resorting to some mantra of superiority.
- Status