Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Socialism Strikes Back


Recommended Posts

Capitalism and democracy are irreconcilable concepts.

I agree that corporatism and democracy are irreconcilable concepts.

Monopoly powers are anti-capitalist hence corporatists who gather monopoly powers are also anti-capitalist.

If monopoly powers are not destroyed, democracy will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Delusional.

Germany suffered the most in WW2 and they are now the strongest economy in Europe with biggest manufacturing sector.Japan was also hit hard and a couple of cities nuked and they are still the 3rd biggest economy on earth.Russia is a member of 'BRICS' who is supposed to be the new superpower bloc.China occupied by Japan from 1937, major cities bombed and taken by Japan....Do i need to continue?

Both Germany and Japan received billions in aid after the war in order to enable them to set up manafacturing/exporting economies and prevent them becoming failed states run by right wing nutcases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was pointed out to me in the late 60s that in fact Germany and Japan had a great advantage in having their manufacturing sectors destroyed in WW2. They were able to start off with new, then modern plant rather than having to continue to use the old stuff to the end of it's planned economic life. Don't forget that heavy industrial plant installed before WW2 might have had an anticipated life of half a century. And of course, unlike the UK, Germany did not spend the Marshall Plan money on socialism.

I think a fundamental point was the number of soldiers killed, the post war effect on the workforce and the two countries response to it.

In Germany vast numbers were killed. The post war effect of this was to make labour scarce and expensive. The result was that the economy concentrated on high value added industries whilst lower value added industries died off becuase they couldn't pay the wages needed.

The above would also have a positive feedback effect - education was highly valued because it would guarantee you a good well paying job.

In contrast the UK lost far fewer men and then replaced those that were lost with immigrants from the colonies.

Also the war generated a sense of entitlement in the UK, fed and watered by the unions, the governments of the day and the BBC. People felt they had a right to a decent wage irrespective of whether they were any good at their job and governments of the day tried to protect them from the economic realities. The result was the drift into militant socialism that destroyed much of our industry in the 1970s.

The Germans in contrast never expected anything for obvious reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Germany and Japan received billions in aid after the war in order to enable them to set up manafacturing/exporting economies and prevent them becoming failed states run by right wing nutcases.

I would've thought the US was more interested in preventing them being run by left wing nutcases.

More generally, have there ever been any failed states run by economically right wing nutcases anywhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been mentioned before. Compare and contrast east and west germany. North Korea and South Korea. Same people, different results. The trouble comes when totalitarian ideologies gain strength...If scandi doesnt clamp down on Islamism, I dont see much future for them.

North Korea, China, Russia, Cambodia, etc all ran genocidal dysgenics programs. They murdered millions of their most intelligent citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-30/u-s-prosperity-slides-in-index-that-ranks-norway-no-1.html

This can't be right surely- those commie 'socialsts' do prosperity better than the good old USof A? :lol:

Yes- I know that Norway, Denmark and Sweden are hardly socialist states in reality- but in the US they are seen as being so.

It's going to be interesting to see how they spin this one.

After all the these places all have the same flaws- they all have well developed welfare systems, they don't treat their working people like trash and they don't allow their bankers to run the country- how on earth can they be be doing better than the states?

How do you explain North / South Korea?

And East / West Germany?

Same people, two systems.

Under one system, freedom and unprecedented prosperity

Under the other slavery and complete and utter economic failure

Give people freedom and they prosper

Enslave people and they give up

It ain't rocket science

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you explain North / South Korea?

And East / West Germany?

Same people, two systems.

Under one system, freedom and unprecedented prosperity

Under the other slavery and complete and utter economic failure

Give people freedom and they prosper

Enslave people and they give up

It ain't rocket science

If you actually read my OP you will see that I already addressed this point- none of these Nordic states is really a socialist state- this is just US hysteria.

What is true however is that all of these states manage to provide decent healthcare for all of their citizens and other social protections that people like you claim are incompatible with prosperity- while being more prosperous than the US.

Meanwhile the poster child of Laissez-faire capitalism- the US- is not able to provide many of it's own citizens with more than a third world level of existence.

So we have this odd mismatch between the theory and the reality- because while we are squabbling over the degree to which the Nordic states have overtaken the US in terms of prosperity we are missing the point- what we should be seeing is the exact opposite of what we are seeing- so it looks like the economics profession has once again screwed up in their claim that pissing all over the population of your country is the way to ensure economic success.

But I guess you can't blame the economists too much- they say what they are paid to say by people with a powerful vested interest in the idea that making the rich richer is the way to go. So it's not the whores to blame here- it's their clients.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you actually read my OP you will see that I already addressed this point- none of these Nordic states is really a socialist state- this is just US hysteria.

What is true however is that all of these states manage to provide decent healthcare for all of their citizens and other social protections that people like you claim are incompatible with prosperity- while being more prosperous than the US.

Meanwhile the poster child of Laissez-faire capitalism- the US- is not able to provide many of it's own citizens with more than a third world level of existence.

So we have this odd mismatch between the theory and the reality- because while we are squabbling over the degree to which the Nordic states have overtaken the US in terms of prosperity we are missing the point- what we should be seeing is the exact opposite of what we are seeing- so it looks like the economics profession has once again screwed up in their claim that pissing all over the population of your country is the way to ensure economic success.

But I guess you can't blame the economists too much- they say what they are paid to say by people with a powerful vested interest in the idea that making the rich richer is the way to go. So it's not the whores to blame here- it's their clients.

The reason the US is screwed is because it copied the European Big State Social Welfare model.

Obama has increased the National debt from 10 Trillion to 16 Trillion Dollars in just 4 years I believe

This policy seems more like Socialism than Capitalism to me.

In the end Europe will go down the toilet and the US will return to its ideological roots and it's economy will boom

The only question is how long this will take 5, 10, 15 or 20 years?

Socialism was tested to destruction in the 20th Century

How many more hundreds of millions have got to die for the cause?????

:blink:

Edited by Game_Over
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've thought the US was more interested in preventing them being run by left wing nutcases.

More generally, have there ever been any failed states run by economically right wing nutcases anywhere?

The party that started the mess in Europe believed in nationalism and anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric (taken from Wikipedia but still correct).

I fear that many parts of the world are starting to go down this path again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason the US is screwed is because it copied the European Big State Social Welfare model.

But the whole point of this thread is that those Nordic states that have far more extensive social welfare models than the US are more prosperous than the US.

How is this to be explained? Surely the US with it's more limited welfare system should be the most prosperous?

There is something wrong with your notion that a large welfare system automatically leads to economic failure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The party that started the mess in Europe believed in nationalism and anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric (taken from Wikipedia but still correct).

I fear that many parts of the world are starting to go down this path again.

The reason their ideas gained traction was in part because apologists for the worst of capitalism failed to deal with it's shortcomings- another path that is being taken again.

Desperate people will be drawn to those whose ideas seem to resonate with the reality of their plight- not to those who try to pretend the problem is an artefact of dissent, rather than a reality of the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the whole point of this thread is that those Nordic states that have far more extensive social welfare models than the US are more prosperous than the US.

How is this to be explained? Surely the US with it's more limited welfare system should be the most prosperous?

There is something wrong with your notion that a large welfare system automatically leads to economic failure.

We cannot prove the counterfactuals here. Would Norway be better or worse off if it had a smaller or larger social welfare system? Would the United States be better or worse off if it had a smaller or larger social welfare system? There is no way to know the answers to these questions. Comparing prosperity and the size of the social welfare systems across countries without effectively controlling for things like the skills of immigrants, the relative ROI of social welfare spending beyond subsistence living for those who are able to work and a comfortable standard of living for those in true need etc is really rather pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the sort of thinh that would occur in Chile or Argentina :huh:

3000 marxist guerrillas killed by security forces vs 2,000,000 civilians in the Cambodian killing fields suspected of maybe being intelligent enough to maybe question the government at some point.

Basically the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The party that started the mess in Europe believed in nationalism and anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric (taken from Wikipedia but still correct).

I fear that many parts of the world are starting to go down this path again.

Which part are you talking about? I don't think nationalism had anything to do with it. The mess was started as soon as the British kicked Churchill to the curb.

Here is an excellent documentary on it (probably been watched by most here already):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omIM4SF1oQQ

There are 2 more episodes, forum wont let me post them.

Edited by kraft
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg...orway-no-1.html

This can't be right surely- those commie 'socialsts' do prosperity better than the good old USof A? :lol:

Yes- I know that Norway, Denmark and Sweden are hardly socialist states in reality- but in the US they are seen as being so.

It's going to be interesting to see how they spin this one.

After all the these places all have the same flaws- they all have well developed welfare systems, they don't treat their working people like trash and they don't allow their bankers to run the country- how on earth can they be be doing better than the states?

Did they have a Thatcher type party doing a hatchet job on heavy industry?

Last i read Sweden had 10's billions $$ of ship orders well into the future!

Did they impose "Reaganomics" on their cultures/economies/banking classes?

Edited by erranta
Link to post
Share on other sites

Havent we had socialism in the north anyway? Govt makes up a vast portion of the economy up there. If socialism was best these would be the most dynamic, vibrant and wealthy parts of the country. Theyre not. Anything but in fact. The poorest parts of the country are mostly the same places that were poor 30 years ago.

In the US, Govt has grown from being 17/18% of the economy in the 50s/60s to 35/36% today. And yet inequality has grown vastly during that period.

I dont know what it is about the scandi countries. What i do know is there are politicians in every country who say 'lets copy Norway etc' and it never seems to work very well. They must just have something unique in Scandi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceland one of the top performers.

(Psssstt..... don't tell people from the European countries negotiating a loss of sovereignty to bail out EU bankers)

Media-Prosperity_Index_Infographic.png

Either continental drift has got our of hand, or the cartographer isn't very good at geography.

More seriously, Icelanders spend more time reading and writing books per capita than any other nation, I believe. It's the long dark winters. They are well-educated, if a little crap at banking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which part are you talking about? I don't think nationalism had anything to do with it. The mess was started as soon as the British kicked Churchill to the curb.

Here is an excellent documentary on it (probably been watched by most here already):

There are 2 more episodes, forum wont let me post them.

I was talking about the left wing party with a dose of nationalism in Germany in the 1930s called the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Havent we had socialism in the north anyway? Govt makes up a vast portion of the economy up there. If socialism was best these would be the most dynamic, vibrant and wealthy parts of the country. Theyre not. Anything but in fact. The poorest parts of the country are mostly the same places that were poor 30 years ago.

In the US, Govt has grown from being 17/18% of the economy in the 50s/60s to 35/36% today. And yet inequality has grown vastly during that period.

I dont know what it is about the scandi countries. What i do know is there are politicians in every country who say 'lets copy Norway etc' and it never seems to work very well. They must just have something unique in Scandi.

Maybe you should take a closer look instead of just assuming you know the answer before you start?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.