Real World Event Discussions

Voters steer Europe to the right

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 16:35
VIEWED: 24282
PAGE 10 of 23

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:47 PM

Quote:
I never even hinted that it was! And I AM a pro-capitalist. Just pointing out that the radical revolutionary left position isn't there now as it was say, during the 1930s and a previous era of economic hardship. And thank God for that.

Because things are working so well now? I found this on (of all places) the Christian Science Monitor

Is capitalism fatally flawed?
By Paul McDonnold
Quote:
Recessions, like hurricanes, leave wreckage behind – bankrupt businesses, high unemployment, and sometimes even tattered philosophies. The philosophy of economic conservatism has long been one of unquestioned deregulation. Conservatives have considered it as a way of unhooking government leashes that the economy strains against, setting it free to run at full speed and lead us to wealth. But this philosophy seemed to collapse in the moral and financial wreckage of today's recession. Like many conservatives, I was left facing uncomfortable questions, chiefly: Is capitalism itself fatally flawed? I decided to consult a few past thinkers.

In "The Communist Manifesto" (1848), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels propose that capitalism has inherent weaknesses. Marx said these would lead capitalist economies to collapse and become government-run socialist economies, and eventually utopian systems that he called communist. Today his words sound eerily current, like answers on a Sunday morning political show:

Interviewer: "Mr. Marx, not that long ago, lovers of capitalism pronounced your ideas dead. Now, according to at least one source, we are all socialists. What changed?"
Marx: "It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society."
Interviewer: "Nowadays we call these 'crises' recessions. You predicted that over time, capitalism would become dominated by larger and larger firms."
Marx: "[T]he concentration of capital and land in a few hands."
Interviewer: "And how does this concentration bring on socialism?"
Marx: "By paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented."
Interviewer: "So the bigger firms become, the harder they fall. In the US economy, some firms have become 'too big too fail,' and the government has moved in. As this plays out, what will happen to capitalism?"
Marx: "Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Marx's disturbing words seemed even more prescient to me when I thought about what has happened in the US banking industry. As recently as 1980, the US was a nation of mostly small- and medium-sized banks. Employees knew, often on a personal basis, both the depositors and the borrowers. Deposits that were not loaned out had to be kept in low-risk investments such as government bonds. People who claimed the mantle of conservatism dismantled the regulations behind this system. This shook the industry. Through mergers and acquisitions, resources were centralized. The number of banks declined. Huge conglomerates arose and created the complex world of global finance that later collapsed. This is capitalism's dark side of impersonal corporations, recessions, and class conflict.

Another famous thinker, Adam Smith, saw a different side of capitalism. Seven decades before the "Manifesto," he wrote "The Wealth of Nations," about the capitalism of his day. It was one of small, decentralized firms – butchers and bakers. The driving force was not blind greed but a healthy interest in improving one's own lot by helping others. It was a capitalism that looked a lot like the banking sector before deregulation. Marx and Smith each saw a piece of the truth – two different sides of the coin of capitalism. Capitalism itself is not fatally flawed.
I don't know how he got to THAT, because he hasn't refuted Marx's arguments, but anyway...

Quote:
But a hyperconservative approach to it is. Regulations that promote decentralized competition on a human scale a

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:04 PM

Exactly like that, Mikey.

Remember, I know how this is gonna go, I have known how this is gonna go for years in advance.

We ain't done with the ugly yet, however.

-F

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:41 PM

Quote:
I suppose my final analysis is that infant mortality stats are no proof of the superiority of universal health care. Lets have a conversation instead about insurance abuses and tort reform.

Looking at it another way, we could say that the stats do not offer any evidence of the INFERIORITY of socialized health care in terms of outcomes, either. And since socialized health care costs approximately 50-30% LESS per capita than private health care, whya re we sticking with an economically inefficient system? After all, isn't that where the so-called free enterprise system is supposed to shine? Getting more for less? (Seems the only thing we get more of is "screwed", tho. And that's pretty much across-the-board.)

Going back to your other points:

smoking is more common among lower income americans.
Drinking is more common among lower income americans.
Child neglect is more common among lower income americans.
Drug use is more common among lower income americans.

STRESS is more common among "lower income" Americans. Why??? Because nobody gives a shit about them and they don't give a shit about themselves. We have the greatest income inequality among all of the developed nations. CLEARLY, our commitment to social darwinism is creating a stressed, obese, addicted, unhealthy, crime-ridden, uneducated public. Faced with the RESULTS of our economic system, one has to go back to its PURPOSE. Are we achieving what we wanted? Are we pleased with the results? And what is it for anyway??? Greatest good for greatest number? Pie in the sky, by and by? An ideologically-driven system of "freedom"? Capitalism for capitalism's sake?

Also, going back to possible racial differences in populations: France has a significant African minority. Because it's illegal to conduct official surveys by race in France, the black population is only estimated, but it's at 5-10%.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:03 PM

Quote:
Lack of health care is more common among lower income Americans, too. That might have something to do with any or all of the above...

Sure. As I said, the varibles are legion.

Quote:
If you say these things are more prevalent among the poor, and that's no big deal because they're poor and no one really cares if they live or die.

A cruel thing to write. I said no such thing.

Quote:
Some 80% of us qualify as "poor" by Euro standards, might that impact your thinking a bit?

Since you indicate the 80% is an out-of-the-arse figure I shall disregard. But I'm sure that "poor" as defined in western europe is different than here. It's a reasonable statement to make since I know for a fact that "Rich" as defined in socialist nations is far below what we regard it here. And thus exists the difference between a land of opportunity and a land of stagnation. It's why self-starters worldwide still come to our nation even now in the 21st century. These past 3 years I've been building capital to open my own Subway restaurant. (It'll be pro-firefly btw and proudly displayed). As a part of the process I was granted a book in which was contained the store numbers of every single Subway location in the lower 48 along with the names of the franchsees. The number of non-anglo names in the book far outweighs what would seem to be "normal" american names. I bet 15-20% are "Patel". And good for these people. I'm happy for all of them. They came here because we were a nation that encouraged free-enterprise and acted as fertile soil for motivated self-starters. The essence of the purity of economic liberty makes me tremble.

Elsewhere in the world, like europe, enterprise is not encouraged. It's not prohibited...but the profit motive just isn't there. The result? Lots of people who all live the same I guess. Few rise above. Those that really want to stive for anything move here. The rest stay and do nothing...perhaps they depend on luck. And when you depend on luck you wind up on the drift.

Honestly, the way I've always seen it, the euros have climbed the wrong tree into vines of overwhelming debt and now don't know how to get themselves down. We on the other hand have things about 40% solved. We need to overcome insurance abuse with strict regulations and then end the process of fruitless torts that burden insurance companies whereupon they pass the buck to the middle class in the form of higher premiums. The one thing that stands in my way like a titan blocking my path to my Subway is the thought of buying my own health insurance for my family. It really pisses me off how bad it is out there when you don't get it as a benifit to employment. I will not however trade in this fear in exchange for a free health care system that will never self-sustain and will with no doubt drive the american population into ruin and long term debtor misery.

When I do get the subway open I'm considering a free sub to anyone who watches firefly for the 1st time. Good idea?

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:26 PM

Talk about ignoring facts to offer nothing but insult!

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
And thus exists the difference between a land of opportunity and a land of stagnation.

That's true, and judging by social mobility, Europe not only has more opportunity than the states, but the states has one of the lowest in the developed world. Stagnation is a dangerous thing, and a big problem for modern America it would seem...

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
It's why self-starters worldwide still come to our nation even now in the 21st century.

Because they don't go anywhere else? I seem to remember immigration to Europe being quite high...

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
The number of non-anglo names in the book far outweighs what would seem to be "normal" american names. I bet 15-20% are "Patel".

I have to admit that here in Britain, where the national dish is Curry, we have very few people from the Indian sub-continent, and with all those curry houses, you can certainly tell there's no opportunities for them...

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Elsewhere in the world, like europe, enterprise is not encouraged. It's not prohibited...but the profit motive just isn't there. The result? Lots of people who all live the same I guess. Few rise above.

There's your American-centrism talking again. You've never even been to Europe have you? Can you even find it on a map?

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Those that really want to stive for anything move here. The rest stay and do nothing...perhaps they depend on luck. And when you depend on luck you wind up on the drift.

Anything to back up that assertion (besides nationalist xenophobia I mean

)?

Nope, didn't think so

. Maybe we're too busy "stiving" for a better education

...

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:28 PM

Quote:
And thus exists the difference between a land of opportunity and a land of stagnation.

Opportunity for who? Stagnation for who? Social mobility in the USA is ALSO lower than in Europe.

You're focusing on one aspect of capitalism, but not seeing the overall results, apparently. So, my question for YOU would be... Since capitalism apparnelty offers you the chance to open your own business (which you belive doens't exist anyhwere else) but offers nothing FOR ME, why should I support it? Generically, what argument can you make for it?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:54 PM

Quote:
You've never even been to Europe have you?

Well I've told you before I lived in Saarbruken for a year of an overabundance of schooling. I was in Tel Aviv for 3 months too, but that's not europe is it?

Beyond that I've traveled most of the lower 48 states. Places you'll never see since you'll never leave your great big island.

Quote:
I have to admit that here in Britain

Oh so you do live in Britain? As in UK? As in United Kingdom? As in the occupiers of Northern Ireland? Not the threads topic I know, but I'd sure like the clarification since you once laid those subjects at the feet of the English.

Hmm. England. I've never actually been there. I should extend my plans for normandy to include a ride along the Chunnel. Is there anything worth seeing on your great big island? Or is the UK just a bunch of people with big egos and bad teeth?

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Since capitalism apparnelty offers you the chance to open your own business (which you belive doens't exist anyhwere else) but offers nothing FOR ME, why should I support it?

You and I have both studied different philosophies, but each know well a truth of the subject of philosophy itself, that each arguement can be made. Each is proven valid. Each is proven false.

Rather than prove to you the truth of capitalism I might demand you prove it false. The result is the same.

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:26 PM

Clearly you have no answer for the points I raised in my last two posts. That sound, it's you being unable to create a credible argument, and so relying on only personal insults to push your authoritarian agenda.

But then, you have a long history of ignoring all facts and debate only to troll and insult.

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Well I've told you before I lived in Saarbruken for a year of an overabundance of schooling.

You've never been to Europe, stop talking nonsense. You're spouting crazy nonsense that anyone who has actually been to Europe would know is nonsense, and because you've done a google search for Germany town names, you think that's compelling? Stop lying, admit it, you've never left the US. The truth will set you free.

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Beyond that I've traveled most of the lower 48 states. Places you'll never see since you'll never leave your great big island.

Whatever gets you through the night my xenophobic, nationalist, Authoritarian little troll.

Quote:
Oh so you do live in Britain? As in UK? As in United Kingdom? As in the occupiers of Northern Ireland? Not the threads topic I know, but I'd sure like the clarification since you once laid those subjects at the feet of the English.

Quote me. Why do you feel the need to make stuff up so often? Are you a fantasist?

Quote:
Hmm. England. I've never actually been there.

Well, it is outside the US, so that's a given.

Quote:

Or is the UK just a bunch of people with big egos and bad teeth?

No, it's not really very much like the States at all.

Quote:
You and I have both studied different philosophies, but each know well a truth of the subject of philosophy itself, that each arguement can be made. Each is proven valid. Each is proven false.

Rather than prove to you the truth of capitalism I might demand you prove it false. The result is the same.

Translation:
"I've got nothing, but I'm not man enough to admit it"

KWICKO

Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:43 PM

Quote:
And thus exists the difference between a land of opportunity and a land of stagnation. It's why self-starters worldwide still come to our nation even now in the 21st century.

Can you name one supercar manufacturer that even EXISTS in the U.S., much less one that's started up recently? (Hint: Vector doesn't count, since they've never actually sold any vehicles to customers, as far as anyone has been able to tell).

Meanwhile, you've got companies like Pagani and Koenigsegg starting up in Europe (Italy and Sweden, respectively), building vehicles that far surpass mere "garden variety" Ferraris and Lamborghinis. And these aren't companies that are spinoffs of megacorporations the way Maybach, Bentley, Bugatti, and many others are - these are companies started by one man with a vision. And so is McLaren. The States have nothing that will even compete with these kinds of companies. Hell, we barely even have Chrysler and GM at this point...

Point being, just because you haven't heard of the company doesn't mean there aren't VERY successful companies being started in "socialist" places like Sweden and Italy. Isn't Nokia a Swedish company as well, or is it Norwegian?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"You're a idiot." -AuRaptor, RWED, May 27, 2009.