It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism Doesn’t Pay: Britain is Poorer Than Any US State But Mississippi

page: 15
22
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

"Wow" what? This is all nonsense.

Another person who thinks the United Kingdom is "socialist", funny and ironic given it founded modern capitalism.

Poor in terms of what? GDP or Per capita? Neither would obviously compare it as poorer then almost all US states.


Britain is much more socialist than the US,


No it isn't. Not sure what planet these users are on.




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   


So, for all of Britain’s communist-styled government polices, its free homes for people, its supposedly wonderful free healthcare, its old age pensions that kick in earlier than ours (though the retirement age is going up soon), for all these social welfare programs and “nets,” well, the truth is they are all poorer than any of us.


What a pathetic delusional.

Britain's healthcare is clearly of a higher standard than that in the US, which makes use of "communist" police and fire -fighting services. And America's apparently non-communistic government policies?

Interesting that Britain's per capita is quoted as $36,000, when even during the previous years at the height of recession it was $39,600, and with the economy apparently at pre-recession levels, the reality is the UK is in the middle of the list.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian

If the government wasn't there, then the corporations couldn't use it.

A free market favors smaller corporations because a local business can always offer more specific and tailored service.

All of the fascistic/socialistic power that the corporations wield comes from the power of government.

A regular citizen will never be closer to power than the exploiters unless the center of power is dispersed or nonexistent.

Big corporations like big government because it gives the corporations a locus, concentration of power, that can be bought.

We should have thousands of representatives in Congress.


edit on 27-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Where to get the idea that a free market favors smaller corporations? Where is this practiced? We don't live in Mayberry anymore. Why would corporations want to reduce power and profit? When does that ever happen? When has a company ever thought it was a good idea to split into parts (that aren't controlled by a larger corporation) except back when government did it's job of serving the community and preventing monopolies and splitting up companies?

It is profit above all. Profit doesn't care. Profit doesn't need to make a good product, it just needs to make a cheap production and squash competition.

What protection does the public have against the corporations without government? Do you actually believe it's purchasing power? Monopolies (and everything else I previously described) negate this entire concept.

There is very little understanding of what it was like to have small businesses that caters to the individual these days. It's going to be very hard to get back to that. The only communities that enjoyed this are either on the decline or have has policies that banned chain stores from wiping out the local business community. I enjoyed this when I lived in Brooklyn at one point, but those days are closing and everything that was put into place to keep things small and local is getting wiped out by corporate monoliths that not only come into the neighborhoods, but they come into the neighborhoods, bulldoze what was once there, and build up a new landscape that caters to them. There aren't even any small stores to move into because they've been wiped out and replaced by a huge modern cheap mess. It'd be great to go to the little guy, but he's packed up and taken a job at walmart, because that's the only job in town.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian

All countries on the planet are capitalist. Once you have a system or nation which enshrines profit and private property, you are capitalist. Private profit is the key; remove it and you have a non-capitalist system.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: EC666

… or have degrees of capitalism built into them. No argument from me there.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So, all of your ideological theorizing is completely in the abstract and there is not a single real world example of your beliefs in action to any degree at any time anywhere in the world. No success stories, all merely paper logic.

Tsk tsk. Sad that.

You know, at least the Communists have actually tried to put their beliefs into action.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


You know, at least the Communists have actually tried to put their beliefs into action.


Some people may argue that those were not "True" Communism.





edit on Aug-27-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: neformore

Good opinion on the first part of the story, but still being debated by definitions.

What about the second part?

Are those GDP comparisons accurate?

"Part 2" linked in original story



Hey Xuenchen, can you point out where Mr. Nelson refers to socialism in this article or the Telegraph article he refers to herein? If not, would you be willing to request that this be moved to the HOAX bin, based on the misleading title?

Regarding the calculations using PPP as a factor, did you have a comment on S. Korea being the richest nation on earth, using the same method of calculation?

With Chile a close second?

Fascinating that.




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66


You know, at least the Communists have actually tried to put their beliefs into action.


Some people may argue that those were not "True" Communism.






Some would argue that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Further, even so, at least they tried to put beliefs into practice, which is more than any follower of Von Mise et. al. has ever done.

Pure ideological claptrap.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well it's certainly been an eye opener and good conversation just the same.



Most of my questions in the OP have been addressed, but some remain unclear without clear answers.




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I hope you'll pardon me for pressing you on this issue, but since you reiterated the actual Nelson post(s) above, I do feel that it's fair game.

Would you at least state, for the record, that the Nelson articles are misrepresented and misappropriated by your original post as well as the blog link at Publius'?



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm Still not 100% convinced of anything yet.

Some arguments are simply saying UK isn't "Socialist" and the GDP/PPP ratio comparisons don't make any difference and mean nothing to anybody.

The 1st story somehow links "Socialism" to the UK, but obviously that's the author's strong opinion probably based on a definition the author believes might be correct.

The 2nd story links the GDP/PPP ratios and has a link in the table to more data that I have not figured out yet.

And of course, My two semi-related questions have not been answered in full either, just a couple of general opinions.

I'm fenced and confused.

But the topic opened some interesting debate on Socialism/Capitalism and who is and who isn't and what variations and combinations exist.




posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I think that's probably the most honest post of yours I've ever read Xuenchen; let me, honestly, thank you for that at least.



I'm going to make my fundamental point one last time and move on. My point is a simple one.

Fraser Nelson does not mention the word socialism even one time in his Spectator article: Nelson article in the Spectator.

Read it for yourself and see. Heck, use the search function on your browser.

Fraser Nelson does not mention the word socialism even one time in this article in The Telegraph: Nelson Article in The Telegraph.

Those facts put the lie to both the title of this post, and the linked article at the blog Publius' Forum

He's just not talking about socialism, Xuenchen; he's actually talking about racism, the (in my opinion faulty) comparisons between GDP Per Capita, PPP, PDQ, RSVP notwithstanding, and addressing the disdain for America in the British culture.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian


Where to get the idea that a free market favors smaller corporations? Where is this practiced? We don't live in Mayberry anymore. Why would corporations want to reduce power and profit?


The corporations don't want or try to be smaller.

They would naturally be smaller because of competition. Competition is discouraged by government regulation because regulations are fixed costs, and thus are a smaller percentage of gross income for a big company.



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So, all of your ideological theorizing is completely in the abstract and there is not a single real world example of your beliefs in action to any degree at any time anywhere in the world. No success stories, all merely paper logic.

Tsk tsk. Sad that.

You know, at least the Communists have actually tried to put their beliefs into action.


Socialists rule by the abstract. Because they don't make anything.

From John Maynard Keynes, 1936 (the socialist economist)


The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas.
en.wikiquote.org...


The Industrial Revolution is not an abstraction.


edit on 27-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I didn't make a single claim about socialists, except that they're not present in the articles cited by the OP.

You're the one that's spewing meaningless platitude after empty bromide about your aberrant version of socialism.

And even if Keynes were a socialist (and he wasn't) you're still quoting from a book he wrote in 1936 called The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money 78 years later. Not surprising because it's still considered one of the most important books in English of all time, not to mention that Keynes basically founded the study of macroeconomics.

He indeed created something (he published well over 20 books). Actually, as directly opposed to being a "socialist" he was a savvy investor who created his own fortune twice after losing the first one in the '29 Crash.

These are facts though, which I don't expect to affect your utopian von Misean fantasies that much.

By the way, did you come up with a working example of a free market/no government nation yet?

You keep muttering about The Industrial Revolution. What is your point? It began in England, which, certainly had a government as well as some degree of government control/intervention in the economy. Ditto the United States. Ditto any country in Europe, Asia, or anywhere else.

But, don't be coy Semi ... share your dream of a anarcho-capitalist utopia ...

Don't let reality stop you.
edit on 23Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:57:34 -050014p112014866 by Gryphon66 because: Yes, yes I did.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Have came to the realisation that semi has no understanding of economics, politics or history and is constantly redefining words to his own agenda. As an unreconstructed Keynesian his last comment has pushed me over the edge of my tolerance. Pretty sure he thinks Atlas shrugged is non fiction.
As my brain hurts to much too carry on hope you have mote luck than me working out what he actually on about.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: xuenchen

Britain isn't a "socialist" country, in any way shape or form. We have a socialised healthcare system and that's it. We are very much a free market capitalist society.



I'm British and I'm not sure I agree with this.

We have a huge percentage of people who rely on state handouts to survive each monthm, from the people who get free or subsidised housing, to those who live solely on benefits, to families who get "working tax credits" to top up their wages.

These people are reliant on the state. If it was a true free market economy then this wouldn't happen - the idea that a family with 2 working parents need assistance from the state to reach a living income in a market where people are paid a fair wage for their labour is laughable.

I think we have a society that is neither socialist or capitalist, or maybe it's both.

You have those at the top (government, the old Eton, Oxford, Cambridge, etc boys) who cream off money from the taxpayer, whether it's for HS2, back to work training schemes, the Olympics, weapons systems for the Army/Navy/Airforce, etc.

The people making the decisions went to the same schools and are friends with the people who provide the state funded services or products, so they squeeze the majority for more and more tax then share the money among the minority who get richer and richer while everyone else has less and less.

The ones at the bottom can't or won't complain because they are getting "free money" from the state they don't want to or daren't rock the apple cart because they want or need the money to survive.

A large proportion of the population are dependent on the state.

Then you have the state apparatus telling outright lies to the people to protect their positions of power:

The Hillsborough disaster;
The 1400 children from Rotherham who have been sexually abused systematically for over a decade by Pakistanis (and this is just 1 town - it's been happening all over the country and covered up for political reasons and no action taken until recently);

I don't know what you call it when you have the state lying to the people, creating a society that would collapse without the state providing for them, where people work more and more and have less and less, and those at the top get richer and richer by milking away all of the money.

But it isn't quite socialism and it isn't quite capitalism and it isn't a free society or free trade economy.

Maybe we need a new term.

Scamalism? Fraudalism? Usealism? Jokealism? Hadenoughalism?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Power_Semi

Almost every modern national economy is a mixed economy a specific term which has a specific meaning ... and frankly, I see no way to willingly transform into something else. Nor, I think, would any reasonable person wish to do so except ideologically.

Now, via natural catastrophe, political revolution, military invasion, etc. perhaps.

Every modern economy is a complex almost organic entity. While it is very easy in the abstract, or on paper to make statements like "stop government regulation" or "end welfare" etc., the shockwaves that such abrupt and detrimental changes would send through the society at large are really unthinkable.

It is common among some political groups to try to compare a national economy to an individual household; this makes mundane concepts like "balancing the books" or "not spending more than you make" SOUND reasonable but vapid panaceas like this are, if applied in the real world, disastrous.

Again, macroeconomics. Keynes.

/shrug YMMV




top topics



 
22
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join