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: 19
22
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Well said.

It is true, the common value system is essential to harmonious civilizations.

In order to rectify humanities current mess, there seems the necessity for the creation of geographical separation of cultural identities.

It isn't racism it is good sense. Those of Nordic persuasion = Nordic values, those of Islamic persuasion = Islamic values, those don't sit well together so separate them. Problem solved. Similarly for other cultures.




posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: urmenimu
a reply to: xuenchen

the brits are capital elitists. that means the lower class is socialized to the same degree as the lowest casts in india. the financial elites in GB are entirely world order financial capitalists. all lower classes [everyone but the elites] will be socialized into obscurity. the new royals have arrived [but been here all along]. they still stink as of swine.


Can someone please translate this?



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: urmenimu
a reply to: xuenchen



the brits are capital elitists. that means the lower class is socialized to the same degree as the lowest casts in india. the financial elites in GB are entirely world order financial capitalists. all lower classes [everyone but the elites] will be socialized into obscurity. the new royals have arrived [but been here all along]. they still stink as of swine.



Can someone please translate this?


the brits are capital elitists. that means the lower class is socialized to the same degree as the lowest casts in india. the financial elites in GB are entirely world order financial capitalists. all lower classes [everyone but the elites] will be socialized into obscurity. the new royals have arrived [but been here all along]. they still stink as of swine.


The elite's public relations project them as socialistic, and global elites can use global populations to enact socialistic policies. Poor people see immediate short term benefits from socialism and no one can tell them otherwise, but socialism will lead into a caste system and the elite's position on top will be fixed in place.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Hmmm. I thought this proved that "Empire Building" doesn't pay - as it always results in Empires Falling.

...



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Actually, empire building paid very well. Fighting two world wars and being stitched up by your mates, however, does cost.

Besides, the Empire didn't fall but was dismantled and the "socialist" state didn't come into being until after the second world war.


la2

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

The thing that all this type of post forgets is that what works in one country won't necessarily work for another, Britain has a system of government more fluid than US system, we change more when we change leader, I don't think Britain is any one sort of country, we change and adapt as time passes, yeah it sometimes fails but that happens everywhere. Considering our geographic size, we punch way above our weight, and currently have the best economic growth of any industrial nation, government is an experiment and has ups and downs, British people are aware of our governments issues, but we are a proud people.


la2

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason
The empire was such a success that all but USA joined the commonwealth after the empire disbanded, a very close alliance and I think that's pretty special.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
A better comparison would be Mississippi and Norway


an accurate comparison would be a country to another country...comparing a state to a country is no comparison at all.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Regarding a need to segregate those with differing national and racial "persuasions" to produce "harmony" and cooperation:

From 1820 through 1996, 36,558,033 Europeans, 8,269,092 Asians, 16,285,621 Americans (non-US, North, Central and South), and 3,564,341 people from Africa and the rest of the world, came together with the mostly British Americans who were already here and created a country that is the only world Superpower, has the most productive economy in the world (almost twice that of our closest rival), the most powerful military by far, etc. etc.

Source

These facts would seem to indicate that cultural differences based on national origin, religion or race are not the greatest negative factor in national success.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

GDP and military might is not an accurate indicator of ''national success''.

Look at the world today, there are many wars, the worst of which are cultural and religion based. The USA is possibly the most hated political entity in the globe, the political system of the USA is a self serving capitalist oligarchy, feeding from it's people. The USA has cultural, financial, ethical and political issues.

Did you forget WTC and the Iraq war caused by religious and cultural hatred. How about GM foods and average Americans being ill from uneducated food choices, being poisoned by their water and banned additive foods, about the trillions of debt, the part the USA played in the global financial meltdown and how it is a major player in the exploitation of other nations.

I would like for cultural diversity to work but it doesn't.

When there are people that consider themselves superior because of their birth into certain religions being amongst those that do not believe themselves inferior, it cannot function smoothly. Hence we are now seeing global wars and financial meltdowns.

If Christians were only in Christendom, Jews in hypothetical 'Jewland', Muslims in hypothetical 'Islamland', Sikhs in 'Sikhland', , Pagans in respective 'Paganland' nations etc then chances are there wouldn't be the cultural stresses in nations that there is today, nor would there be caste systems and cultural hierarchies the way there is today.

For example, are Mexican, Spanish and black viewed the same as white people in the USA?, from the reports I have heard often on the news they aren't, there is racism, culturalism and classism.

If each culture was in their own area then each area wouldn't be experiencing such cultural clashes as racism, culturalism and more likely to have a common value goal for the good of the collective in their area, for the success of their collective and they would feel more part of their collective, ie integrated and less likely for experiencing classism.

Each area would be more tuned to their own success as a collective as there would be a collective cultural identity and if all areas agree on keeping to their own areas and not encroaching on, attempting subversion of, or attacks on other areas then there would be less chance of war.

Area self sufficiency would also mean that global trade is limited and hence better for individual economies and the environment.

How can cultures live together in harmony if they aren't in agreement to basic principles, such as who should live, the things that are eaten, words that are spoken, people that can marry, buildings that are built, people that can be elected, the laws that keep us civilized, who can work, who can have sex, how people have sex, the clothes we wear etc.

These are basic facets required for living and if there are different groups attempting enforcing their own 'ways' that are not consistent with or anathema to existing laws and established cultural ways, it is obvious that such differences would surface, and they did, and they will continue to unless something is done about it. Sticking plaster 'solutions' aren't solutions, treating the cause instead of the symptoms is the answer.

edit on 30-8-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Canada is considered socialistic by some and we cruised through the recession. Primarily due to banking regulations put in place. Btw, thanks for Burger King.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Just noticed this thread is still going on in 'recent posts', I'm impressed, it seems a passionate subject to many folk.
I just know I'd rather be poor in the UK than many US states though. We've got tax-funded healthcare regardless of income, out of work cash benefits, housing/rent benefit for those who are out of work (or low waged) to keep the roof over their head, and all in a system which allows someone like me to chase whatever coin I want to chase in our capitalist economy.

I've claimed 'out of work' benefits for about 10 months in total (in between jobs, a week or few periods on or off) in over a quarter of a century of being legally able to work. 6 months of that was sleeping on the streets as a 16 year old runaway many years ago, but I'd rather go through that in the UK, with UK welfare services, than go through it relying on US state/federal services. Homeless services are amazing in my town now compared to when I presented my sorry arse here all those years ago, and I am happy that my taxes now help fund that in my community.

Being skint in the UK appears to be a much more pleasant experience than being skint in the US, and that is from pretty much everything I have ever read from researched studies, to the multitude of threads discussing such things on ATS.



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

GDP and military might is not an accurate indicator of ''national success''.



Some may note the irony of the argument I'm about to make, but nevertheless ...

Many would disagree with your statement, theabsolutetruth, cf. the folks in this very thread that consider GDP (monkey-ed around with sure, but certain) proof that Great Britain is worse off than every US State except Mississippi.

As to the other matter, I think you'd find enormous disagreement among proponents of American Exceptionalism.

So, while those items may not prove anything to you, they do to many.

Your argument, as I understood it, regarded cultural (et. al.) differences within a given country, not the reactions (many justified) and interactions of separate nations, other religions, other cultural groups. If your only comment is that these differences are a point of conflict between nations, etc., then I withdraw my comment, as the role that culture, ethnicity, and religion (particularly religion) play in the human history of violence visited on each other is quite obvious.

Did I misunderstand your statement?



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Regarding a need to segregate those with differing national and racial "persuasions" to produce "harmony" and cooperation:

From 1820 through 1996, 36,558,033 Europeans, 8,269,092 Asians, 16,285,621 Americans (non-US, North, Central and South), and 3,564,341 people from Africa and the rest of the world, came together with the mostly British Americans who were already here and created a country that is the only world Superpower, has the most productive economy in the world (almost twice that of our closest rival), the most powerful military by far, etc. etc.

Source

These facts would seem to indicate that cultural differences based on national origin, religion or race are not the greatest negative factor in national success.


Up until quite recently we also had one of the stricter immigration policies in the world and also very little social benefit safety net.

I believe these are two MAJOR factors that have helped us avoid Britains failures. Basically the USA was a SINK OR SWIM sort of place, if you immigrated here, you better be ready to put in some work to make it!

Contrast this with the UK's insane social benefits for immigrants where they give away council houses to new immigrants rather than UK citizens who have been on a waiting list for YEARS.

They support people like ANJEM CHOUDARY: www.telegraph.co.uk...

Choudary, a father-of-four, claims more than £25,000 a year in benefits, £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to the Sun, which covertly filmed the preacher at three meetings.


THIS is why Britain is poor now.
THIS is why Britain can no longer afford the NHS.
THIS is why Britain has cut funding to Police and Fire forces.


Now the interesting thing is that Britons ARE finally waking up a bit about this, and the US is going the opposite direction with more and more freebie freebie, social safety net, open borders nonsense.

Don't misconstrue that to think I am anti-social systems though. I beleive the failure of Obamacare is that it's not single-payer+free access. And I do believe in positive programs to get people off the streets, off drugs and back to being productive members of society. I believe those programs will be most successful when built around connecting work ethic to self-worth and self-respect.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
Just noticed this thread is still going on in 'recent posts', I'm impressed, it seems a passionate subject to many folk.
I just know I'd rather be poor in the UK than many US states though. We've got tax-funded healthcare regardless of income, out of work cash benefits, housing/rent benefit for those who are out of work (or low waged) to keep the roof over their head, and all in a system which allows someone like me to chase whatever coin I want to chase in our capitalist economy.

I've claimed 'out of work' benefits for about 10 months in total (in between jobs, a week or few periods on or off) in over a quarter of a century of being legally able to work. 6 months of that was sleeping on the streets as a 16 year old runaway many years ago, but I'd rather go through that in the UK, with UK welfare services, than go through it relying on US state/federal services. Homeless services are amazing in my town now compared to when I presented my sorry arse here all those years ago, and I am happy that my taxes now help fund that in my community.

Being skint in the UK appears to be a much more pleasant experience than being skint in the US, and that is from pretty much everything I have ever read from researched studies, to the multitude of threads discussing such things on ATS.


My wife was born in UK and lived there until 28. I was born in US and have had many extended visits to the UK and Europe (months at a time).

Both of us can tell you it's not as simple as you want to think.

The US requires a higher degree of personal responsibility and money management. (But we get to keep much more of the money in the first place). You need to make sure your affairs are in order. Sometimes it's tedious and irritating because you have to do so much on your own, and the people at various companies always seem incapable of doing their jobs, but here's the thing. IT MAKES US MORE INDEPENDENT.

It can make us a bit fearless, brash, cocky etc, but for sure Americans grow up better prepared for a world that doesn't care about you (the real world).

No do you honestly think the homeless services being so much better that when you were 16 is a really good thing? I wnat to see people given a helping hand, but lets be honest with ourselves here, one of the kick-up-the-ass motivators of being in a bad situation is that IT SUCKS. If you make it too damn posh, then no one will have motivation to get off the dole! And that's where you have to find the balance.

6 years ago I was in a bad place in my life and forced to do some serious rethinking about how I had gotten there and what I wanted from life. I had a storage unit and some possessions, that's all. No job, no car, & no home. I used the wifi every day at a local fast food restaurant and sent dozens of job applications each day. I could have asked friends or family for help, but I decided I had got myself into the mess, and would be a better man if I got myself OUT of it on my own. I sold some hard-earned possessions for a big loss, and used the money to buy a cheap broken car and fixed it myself. That became my mobile home for a few months. I bought decent clothes for interviews, and by the end of the year I was a production manager at a medium-size manufacturing company.

My point is too much social benefits creates a dependent, entitlement society. Combine that with some immigrants who actually desire to damage the system and have no shame about their zero work ethic, and well... you are witnessing the results in the UK right now.
edit on 31-8-2014 by 8675309jenny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Canada is considered socialistic by some and we cruised through the recession. Primarily due to banking regulations put in place. Btw, thanks for Burger King.


HAHA, yea thanks for stealing BK from my birth-town.

See Canada has what I regard as a VERY BALANCED system, not too much benefits, but not too difficult to climb back up when you're down.



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   

edit on 6Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:23:20 -050014p062014866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Perhaps imagine it something like this.

A nation is a collective. Imagine a collective focus is required for moving forwards, upwards in an organised and orderly manner, where the collective are particles and the ultimate aim is for the collective being as a laser, a focused point where all the collective are excited particles that have to face the same direction (ie the same goal for the common good) for the laser to operate and focus.

If the particles are not behaving appropriately for the common good (and therefore functioning light focus), for example a high percentage of erratic particles (not acting for the common good), that created an atmosphere of chaos instead of focus, the laser (society) wouldn't operate as it should ie dysfunctional rather than focused.

That obviously can happen anywhere but ultimately it is an analogy that shows that for whichever causes, all parts of the collective operating collectively within the common value goal is more desirable for a functioning society.

GDP is just a financial measure, cultural cohesion of societies is also a measure and required for long term success. Established ethics have to be maintained for true success of a nation.

The issues within societies today are often a microcosm of the greater issues of nation to nation. For example some cultures are seen as lazy or dysfunctional when placed in more organised work ethic focused civilisations, some cultures are seen more as takers, those that want subjugation and rule of the established culture, for example religious extremists.

I see success as a long term thing, the USA is a new world land and it's concept is relatively new, it's long term success is yet to be seen. People sometimes see things only in terms of that which is familiar where the big picture might be something else. For example, the UK, there have been series of cultural input for thousands of years though for the past 1000 years or so the cultural ethic is pretty established and stable, only recently has there been a major influx of majorly different cultures, that has affected the stability and balance within our society. Right up to the 70's and 80's communities were communities, people knew each other, people helped each other, there was a great sense of belonging, people trusted each other more, you more or less knew how it was and the things to expect from people, there was a norm that people aimed for and conformed to. Cultural (and hence ethical) homogeneity enabled society to act cohesively as a solution, like a glass of milk, any baker will know that a souring agent placed in milk separates the components to a curdle. Successful cultures and societies refrain from adding souring agents to their cultural homogeneity. There should be very strict and rigorous testing for those wanting to join any societies other than that to which they were born.

Perhaps instead of using the term 'culture', it could be replaced with 'ethics' for a more realistic view of reality.

These days in the UK, communities aren't as integrated, how do you know if your Asian neighbour is secretly doing Jihad in Iraq or that they believe in forced marriages of 10 year olds or that the Africans across the road aren't importing infected bats and monkeys for snacks or that they don't believe in voodoo.

People aren't known the way they were. It affects people, can you let your kids play outside like they used to or invite the new neighbours to tea, not like before you couldn't. People don't get to know or trust people in their communities like before. Society in the UK isn't the same as it used to be and not in a good way, how is this going to be in 10, 20, 50, 100 years. Those cultural issues need sorting out now, it has already gone too far. We have our systems, our laws, our ethics and there are certain ethics and laws of other cultures that don't belong here and need stamping out.

www.dailymail.co.uk... rmist-This-investigation-suggests-otherwise.html
www.itv.com/news/update/2014-06-21/neighbours-shocked-at-british-jihad-video/
www.dailymail.co.uk... -ethnicity.html
news.sky.com/story/1325811/rotherham-victim-verbally-abused-by-police
www.telegraph.co.uk... -a-blind-eye.html
edit on 31-8-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
Both of us can tell you it's not as simple as you want to think.

What is not as simple as I think? That being poor in the UK seems a much more pleasant experience than in the US?


The US requires a higher degree of personal responsibility and money management. (But we get to keep much more of the money in the first place). You need to make sure your affairs are in order. Sometimes it's tedious and irritating because you have to do so much on your own, and the people at various companies always seem incapable of doing their jobs, but here's the thing. IT MAKES US MORE INDEPENDENT.
Why not have no assistance for anything then, perhaps a system like India with zero welfare and starving people on the streets? I bet a poor person in India must be more proud about their independence than even you good proud folks in the US, by your reasoning of course.


It can make us a bit fearless, brash, cocky etc, but for sure Americans grow up better prepared for a world that doesn't care about you (the real world).
I'm pleased for you and bow down in deference to your better preparedness compared to us obvious weak folk in the UK [/yawn]


No do you honestly think the homeless services being so much better that when you were 16 is a really good thing?

In a word, yes. It is better than the tent cities we see around the US. Perhaps you pefer people #ting in the woods than being provided a basic bed and toilet facilities in homeless shelters, I don't.


I want to see people given a helping hand, but lets be honest with ourselves here, one of the kick-up-the-ass motivators of being in a bad situation is that IT SUCKS. If you make it too damn posh, then no one will have motivation to get off the dole! And that's where you have to find the balance.
Perhaps you have never visited a homeless shelter, I've worked at a few, none were 'posh', and I never met a single person who wanted to stay in one indefinately - are you making this up just for the sake of argument now?


6 years ago I was in a bad place in my life and forced to do some serious rethinking about how I had gotten there and what I wanted from life. I had a storage unit and some possessions, that's all. No job, no car, & no home. I used the wifi every day at a local fast food restaurant and sent dozens of job applications each day. I could have asked friends or family for help, but I decided I had got myself into the mess, and would be a better man if I got myself OUT of it on my own. I sold some hard-earned possessions for a big loss, and used the money to buy a cheap broken car and fixed it myself. That became my mobile home for a few months. I bought decent clothes for interviews, and by the end of the year I was a production manager at a medium-size manufacturing company.

I am pleased you fixed your problems, as I myself did dragging my arse out of sleeping rough for six months when I was 16. I am also pleased that a percentage of my taxes fund people in similar situations in the UK now. I cannot say I identify with your attitude that you do not wish to provide help to your fellow citizens. Sounds rather cold and heartless to me, but hey, if that makes you proud of yourself...


My point is too much social benefits creates a dependent, entitlement society. Combine that with some immigrants who actually desire to damage the system and have no shame about their zero work ethic, and well... you are witnessing the results in the UK right now.

You must read the Daily Mail too much, Britain may be poorer than many states in the US, but I stand by my comment that I'd prefer to be poor in the UK than the US.
Tax-funded healthcare for all, no tent cities, free school meals and uniforms for poor kids, free home insulation for poor families, rent/housing benefits for those on low wages...
I'm happy for you if you prefer an uncaring society, but I personally prefer one that cares, and I'm happy for my taxes to help fund it.
edit on 31-8-2014 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: intrepid
Canada is considered socialistic by some and we cruised through the recession. Primarily due to banking regulations put in place. Btw, thanks for Burger King.


HAHA, yea thanks for stealing BK from my birth-town.

See Canada has what I regard as a VERY BALANCED system, not too much benefits, but not too difficult to climb back up when you're down.


it's also a country of approx. 25 million people, a little different than trying to manage a country of 320 million people, you got burger king, but you already had rob ford, there's a joke in there, but I just can't flesh it out.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join