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.

 

Millennials Pick Socialism Over Capitalism

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Teikiatsu


People like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot depended on the population thinking like this to achieve power.


Ooh! Oooh! Watch out! Don't innovate, don't try new things! Don't take any risks ! Because then you just might FAIL!
See- a list of people that tried new things in the past, and FAILED!

That approach to life is quite common. Thankfully, not all humans are prone to fear of unknown to that extent.
There are still others who ignore that and create and investigate, explore and discover, innovate and grow, no matter what the system is that they are in.

Exactly! Going by their logic, we should hate capitalism too. After all, look at the damage caused by Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, the Savings & Loans crisis, the "robo-signers" during the foreclosure crisis, the Asian Stock crash, Bernie Madoff, the prescription drug profiteers, and countless other capitalists.

Luckily, life is more complex than that. There are strengths and weaknesses in each economic system, and I think we should utilize the strengths from each one.




posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

Seeing a bunch of different Presidents in action doesn't make you wise, intelligent, or aware either. The gullible will always look for things to satisfy their gullibility, because opening your mind to new or foreign paradigms is anathema to them.


Neo is talking about watching enough of the cycles repeat themselves and the same issues cropping up cycle after cycle. Back an forth and how they are able to do that because of the dumb sheep. And dumb young sheep are always a special and embarrassing sort of stupid.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Name them, and the metric by which you determine 'better'


I have the most knowledge and experience with the medical care in France, so I'll use that example.
High quality care (maybe best in world), affordable prices, continuing innovation and research.
Though the multipayer system provides basic care for all, the consumer chooses their practitioners and facilities.
There are both private and public facilities, that compete with each other, keeping quality up and prices down.
There are no problems with getting care, or waiting for treatments of surgeries.

The continued education (university) is free- getting in is completely dependant upon a students performance, and is highly competative. It is available to all people, regardless of their financial status. I consider this better because the rich and lazy kids cannot get in, the poor and hard working can.
They also do not have a heavy debt on them when they get out (which, as a side note, helps with the costs of medical care, as the doctors don't have that debt to pay back).


There is a more socialist structure here, which exists fine with the capitalist economy, and it has for quite a while. The country sometimes leans a bit to one side or another through time, but staying away from extremes.
Watching this, I realized a whole lot of what we are told about reality and human nature, in the US, is just plain false.
We have been lied to.

From there, yes, I am a bit more open minded to considering something entirely different.
edit on 15-2-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Look at various economic systems throughout history. The economy existed before capitalism and it will exist after capitalism. Back in the 16th century for example the Vatican enforced fair wage laws to ensure people got paid. During the plague nations capped the value of labor. In the USSR there was almost no money due to communism.

Honestly, if anything what we're seeing is that the most powerful economic system isn't pure capitalism but rather an economic system with private ownership of business, but public funds directing research/development in a sector. If for example there is a big need in the country for steel the government can subsidize steel production, create new facilities, and put a bunch of people to work. When it changes to needing medicine the same thing can be done. China's rise has been due almost entirely to this system.

You see it at work with health care in Europe too. The government makes contracts available to provide health care and private business compete over those jobs. The US is even using this model to advance space travel.

It's not pure capitalism but the results speak for themselves.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Teikiatsu


People like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot depended on the population thinking like this to achieve power.


Ooh! Oooh! Watch out! Don't innovate, don't try new things! Don't take any risks ! Because then you just might FAIL!
See- a list of people that tried new things in the past, and FAILED!


I'm all for innovation and political experiments, on the State level. Not the Federal. We have specific enumerated powers that the federal government is not to exceed.

Socialism is not innovative. It is the antithesis of innovation. It is static.


That approach to life is quite common. Thankfully, not all humans are prone to fear of unknown to that extent.
There are still others who ignore that and create and investigate, explore and discover, innovate and grow, no matter what the system is that they are in.


And that's fine, on the local level. If it works, other people can adopt those ideas. But they should prove themselves without government assistance or subsidy.


Ah, you seem to have misunderstood me- I am speaking of a major, GLOBAL change. The era of computers and internet did not effect only the US- it has changed the entire world. - And the polarization of human exchange might be totally innappropriate now.

Computers and robots do the work now- labor has to be looked at in a totally different light than before.
Members of communities are not located in the same time and space. The modes of exchange are totally new.

The time has come to stop looking behind and look into unknown.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

All they have ever experienced is an oil/war economy and mindset.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

I'm looking into the French system. In the meantime I see a trap I fell into:

"That there are countries with more socialism than the US, that are doing BETTER than the US, in some areas. "

Emphasis mine. Of course other countries are going to do better than the US in some areas.. That's basic statistics. In the case of France helps when you have a smaller population, smaller number of lawyers, and smaller public health sector. I would still not say that France overall is doing better than the USA. You'll need to give examples of innovation and research, I have seen what research in the EU is like and I'm not impressed. I have seen examples from PEI, Merk and CNRS - They tend to be more propaganda and feel-good than actual hard science.
edit on 16-2-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I'm quoting this on another social media site, Amazing

"
a reply to: amazing



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join