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: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah sorry I got the wrong end of the stick, Britain is not and never really was socialist but we did have the concept of Social justice, this was not meant to be able bodied people living off the welfare state but to mean that we had a safetly net to catch our people when they had no alternative and the generation who brought it in would be ashamed of admitting they were on welfare, in the UK people are just fed up with immigrant's, drug addict's and layabout's living off our tax's and rightly so but the Welfare state is something we were rightly proud of and it is just the abuse of it that has angered us so much, labour, not new labour used to maintain subsidies for british manufacturing and there were enough job's but now not only but the whole world is facing automation of job's which creates less job's and also outsourcing by our own companies to poorer nations where in the short term they make large profit by paying lower wages to those that they do employ.

Something has to change, if it is not a welfare or social state of the future the alternative is a massive cull of the human population so if you think about it what is the real choice, of course we could always ban certain technology and reinstate subsidies and tax breaks for employers.

edit on 25-8-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Here's a hot one.

Looks like somebody did some "research" and came up with a LuLu comparison.

Britain is poorer than all the U.S. States except for Mississippi !!!

WOW.

I don't know what comparisons and statistics were used (if any), but this sure does put a big spotlight on "Socialism" in general.

Is Progressive.Socialism a genuine "Jewel" or a *Cubic Zirconia* like a rubber check ? ? ?



Fraser Nelson of The Spectator did some number crunching recently and found a shocking fact: Britain is poorer than every State in the USA but one.

As Nelson wrote on August 22, “if Britain were to somehow leave the EU and join the US … we’d be the 2nd-poorest state in the union, poorer than Missouri. Poorer than the much-maligned Kansas and Alabama. Poorer than any state other than Mississippi, and if you take out the south east we’d be poorer than that too.”

This is both shocking and disheartening, especially to American liberals. The liberals all assume that Great Britain is still the jewel of Europe ..........................


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


Why haven't "Socialists" solved

the big Debt problems yet ?








That's a claim, not evidence. Britain, by which I take it that you mean England, isn't socialist. It's capitalist. You probably won't want to compare real socialist countries like Sweden and Denmark to the U.S.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I find myself in agreement, Sweden at least before joining the EU and the influx of immigrant's had one of the highest living standards in the world, an aquaintance lived in gothembourg and when the first Irish travellers came off the ferry on the first day of there EU membership he knew that Sweden was going to be abused by immigrant's.
They also have small populations (pre immigration) and each person was far more important to the state as a consequence.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Thanks for explaining.




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I know I sound a bit racist in the thread but I am not, just that a nation should look after it's own people first as after all a nation is extended family and any immigrant bringing skill's and industry into any economy should be welcomed with the mat rolled out as overall they add to the country as well as enriching its culture and heritage, they also tie the world more closely together so maybe my opinion is slightly out dated.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
As an American who lived in Britain for a few years, I call complete bullsh*t on this.

1. Britain is not socialist, not by any stretch of the imagination. They have more government than we do, for sure. But socialism? You do realize Britain is considered the most capitalist country in Europe, right? London is the financial CAPITALIST center of Europe. Hell, in some ways, they are more cutthroat capitalist than I've seen in the U.S.

2. Even the poorest people in Britain live better than many working class people in this country. The overall standard of living for the population of Britain is better than the overall living standard here. I barely saw any homeless people, and the few I saw were completely insane.

3. Even though they have nationalized medicine, they still pay less per person into the National health Service than Americans pay for health insurance that only covers a fraction of healthcare costs, and leaves people having to mortgage theirs and their kids futures should they ever become sick.

4. Even though they have "socialized medicine", they also have a very healthy private medical industry on top of it. And I found the quality of healthcare in Britain overall better and more honest.

5. The British Pound Sterling remains one4 of the world's healthiest currency.

6. The average Brit has no where near the amount of debt the average American has. Not even close.

7. Food in the stores over there is not only cheaper than here, it is often of better quality.

8. Despite the insane prices of gas and smokes (or petrol and fags as they say), the British manage to drive and smoke without going into poverty.

Seriously. Deny Ignorance.


Well said.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Well, I've certainly walked into the wrong party!

Xuenchen, the headline is misleading in that it uses the word "socialism." A similar concept could have been expressed more clearly, but probably not in the limited space available.

Other than that, a fairly quick glance through the thread leaves me with the impression that economics, statistics, political science, and data interpretation, have all been outlawed as academic courses for some time in the countries from which arise our current crop of ATS posters.

I know this sounds harsh, but I only mean to point out that the evidence of the article and related concepts are basically correct. There's a misunderstanding here which makes a sensible discussion difficult, so we get people making very hostile comments they normally wouldn't use.

I've got to go get some more morphine or whatever it is I'm taking, and let's play with this tomorrow. (Later today)

SHEEPSLAYER247

I'm going to bypass regular channels. Please let me have this thread for Wednesday night's show. I expect at least three of the posters on this thread to call in. Will 20 minutes do it?

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 26-8-2014 by charles1952 because: bracket problem



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
Denmark is wealthy, and is more socialist than Britain.
So this isn't really a very good argument is it?


Denmark has a population about the size of a good city, so it boils down to how many of your population is the worker (providers) and how many are on subsistence (takers). When socialism has more providers than takers the system works, but when the takers start to outweigh the providers the system fails...

The problem is subsistence is like crack, once a person is on it, it is hard to get off, if ever. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance, but in this case it becomes a prison of poor life quality since subsistence ends up just keeping you alive. There is no quality of life for the millions in our big cities that have fallen into this trap, but it is still an easy life, though a sucky one...

One thing to keep in mind is socialism may work for a small population but as the population exceeds 50 million it becomes harder and harder to maintain.

edit to add: When I look at Ferguson I wonder if anyone has a job they need to get to at 7:00 AM, or is it one big party with everyday being a Saturday...
edit on 26-8-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Well perhaps the "Socialism" part refers to money spent on social programs which may be a large part of the UK budgets.

Had I changed the name, it would have changed the entire context of the article as well as the linked article by Nelson.

With that in mind, I would like to know if "Socialism" actually "Pays" ? Perhaps it does in reality. But for who, I don't know (but I have a pretty good idea who) :wink:

Nobody has enlightened that yet.

But I understand.




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well perhaps the "Socialism" part refers to money spent on social programs which may be a large part of the UK budgets.


I guess we can stop calling it socialism and call it social programs instead...there is always a happy medium to all of this, but when a worker has the choice of working and giving 1/2 or more of his pay to social programs, or choose a life of not working and just living on social programs a huge majority of the population will pick not working. Right now if I could get 1/2 my paycheck and not work I might be added to the masses that no longer works. Hmm, big decision, work for half my pay or don't work and get half... not a very tough one to make.

I guess my biggest problem is I'm high maintenance so I need a good wage to keep up with that, stupid me....


edit on 26-8-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: xuenchen

Denmark is wealthy, and is more socialist than Britain.
So this isn't really a very good argument is it?


Except for the fact that Denmark is deep in debt too.

$153 billion / $27,000 per person and rising fast !!!!

Not very impressive.

Denmark big Debt




posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

Please don't take anything I said to be a major criticism. There are some subjects where one side will make a big issue of words. You know, "I'm not an anti-Semite, I'm an anti-Zionist." "Is that Socialist country failing? Oh, that's because it's not truly Socialist." "is that non-Socialist country succeeding? Well, that's because it has Socialist principles."

At other times, the words don't seem to matter so much. Things like "Ukraine, US, UK, Israel, Germany, Nato are all racist, Nazi, terrorist states bent on conquering the world." And "Islam is a religion of peace drawing undeserved hatred and Islamophobia from all over the world, they're just trying to survive."

Don't let the word "Socialism" throw you. Many sources have declared that there are currently only four socialist states in the world. Just about no one here knows what it means when it refers to a country, so it probably doesn't matter much.

It's only a word used to convey warm and fuzzy feelings if you want the government to take stuff from other people and give it to you. It will probably only clutter up the conversation here.

In regard to the question of whether Socialism pays, it depends what kind of payout you want. If you want economic growth, increased production, more "wealth," Socialism is one of the most widely documented failures in history.

But it has been used fairly successfully to get control over the people and route power to central bureaucrats. Many Americans like that idea. They believe the average American is too ignorant to make his own decisions, so government has to make them for him. Remember Bloomberg's 16 ounce soda ban? Or basically anyone still supporting Obama against the average person?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Apologies if you have confirmed earlier in the thread but the link doesn't seem to confirm what debt figure it is using. ( national debt can be calculated a number of ways) . Can you clarify and also why do you think it is important?



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   
The sheer arrogance and open deception on display is simply staggering.

Now, socialism isn't socialism ... it's merely social programs when it's convenient to a particular argument. I suppose the next iteration of convenience will condemning social networks or perhaps ice cream socials? (That Mark Zuckerberg, what a communist, eh? Heheheh.)

Casual disdain for ATS members is strategically utilized in some posts to suggest that, well, since no one here (with the obvious exception of the poster making the spurious claim, of course *sniff*) really understands anything much at all, when the OP (and subsequent posters) make blatantly false statements repeatedly, why that really doesn't matter one whit.

The OP itself makes the original claim that the UK is socialist, therefore, (hang on for the mental pretzel-tying) it doesn't really matter what the word socialist actually means or the spurious claims made in the OP about the UK, Mississippi, or socialism, because people in whatever intended audience won't understand what socialism actually is.

Utterly astonishing logic, that.

Presenting lies as truth is now the fault of the listeners and readers. Who knew?

edit on 2Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:56:54 -050014p022014866 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling correction.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Charles, a brief question?

Are you more comfortable with the government taking stuff from other people and using that stuff to buy weaponry that is then used, either by our government or other governments that we, in turn, hand out these weapons to, to murder innocent women and children and call it collateral damage?

I myself would rather have my money taken to purchase a phone for someone rather than having it taken to rain down Hellfire from above on kids.

That's just me though.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

With the level of misunderstanding displayed, it may be impossible for this to become an honest and useful discussion, that's why I'm hoping to do it on the radio show. I'd like to try to start again without the misunderstandings.

This is not arrogance or disdain (casual, or the more proper, formal disdain), nor is it lies. Let's take a statement you've made, which many here have expressed support for:


The GDP of the UK in 2012 was 2.435 TRILLION USD. (Source)

California is the US state with the highest GDP which is listed at 1.95 TRILLION USD. (Source)

That second list shows that technically the UK is the 7th most productive country in THE WORLD.

The OP is completely misleading, incorrect, flawed, etc.


Had you had the opportunity to read the source article, you would have seen that the author was using per capita figures with a purchasing power parity factor included. Those are both widely accepted in global economic analysis.

The statement you made showed you were using total GDP, not per capita, so your statement had no relevance to the OP or source article.

I'm not saying this to scold. I make more mistakes than anyone in this thread. I know it. I'm not trying to make you feel dumb, either, because you're not. This is an important topic and should be looked at it, but it's also an emotional one. That wasn't taken into account when the OP was prepared.

I like xuenchen, it's my opinion that this topic needed a little more groundwork and definition from the beginning, but we all have different styles.

It would be a great honor if you and I could put this thread back together and see what can be salvaged from it. Willing to give it a go?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Charles, please believe me when I tell you that it is of tantamount concern to me to always respond to you with the exact same beneficence and respect that you, yourself, so clearly accord to all.

That being said, I do have to correct your statements (mistakes which I'm sure you only made in your haste to prepare for the radio program) in that I did, in fact, read both Xuenchen's original post and the linked article. Both quite clearly make the primary assertion that socialism equals poverty. The spurious "analysis" of economic details notwithstanding, the errant title and thesis, both of the thread here and the linked article, refer to the relative wealth of a state, either that state is a nation, like the UK, or merely the equivalent of a principality or territory, as are our American States.

In short, the claims made compare the realtive wealth of the "states" Mississippi and the UK invoking the larger political and economic systems of each, and then proceeds to offer evidence based on a statistical mean regarding individuals.

Thus, the easiest and most direct refutation was to look at the most commonly accepted economic measure of large-body entities, or "states" ... and thus, the 2012 GDP of both were offered which clearly put the lie to these claims.

I think that wraps it up quite nicely, no need to reiterate once again. I don't listen to the radio program, so I do hope you have fun if your part involves dispensing wisdom to the masses. I do hope, however, you have time to review these fundamental errors in logic though.

I know you'd hate to broadcast poor information.

Best,

edit on 3Tue, 26 Aug 2014 03:34:47 -050014p032014866 by Gryphon66 because: Deleted "not to mention" which was itself a spurious phrase.


(post by AngryCymraeg removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: xuenchen

Denmark is wealthy, and is more socialist than Britain.
So this isn't really a very good argument is it?

And Norway and Sweden.....

They have much lower debts too.....



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

With all due respect, the basic premise of this thread is incorrect; Britain is not a socialist country as every UK poster and many non-UK posters have testified to.

And so as a result this whole thread should be consigned to the Trash Bin.

Added to that, there has been more than enough doubt cast on the accuracy and validity of the data used to support the other point made in your OP to render this thread as nothing more than a bitching exercise with no real positive purpose and I'm sure that wasn't your initial intent.....was it?




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join