Gryndyl wrote:

KWW wrote:

changa wrote:

Europe is almost entirely socialist. Why does it work over there?

Gryndyl: I guess I'm wondering if it does? Why is the dollar stronger than the euro?

Short answer: it's not. The Euro has been gaining steadily on the dollar since Bush has been in office, it passed it a year or two back and the dollar's still falling.

What makes you say it works there...

They've got a strong economy based on relatively few raw resources. They're right next to the ice-cap, don't forget. Europe's not really a hospitable place.

what makes you say it doesn't here?

You'll need to ask kww, that was his premise.

Look at our GNP, look at the amount of money we throw around the world at our whim...Israel, Iraq (two wars in 12 years) Afghanistan, etc, etc,

Very nice, until you look at the state of the states with hiring freezes, cutting schools and skyrocketing unemployment.
I don't blame that on socialism though, I considered Clinton to be quite the socialist, and things were booming during his presidency.

Gryndyl: I hate to say this, it sounds trite when I read it, but it sounds like you are talking about communism (Marxist, not the Lenin/Stalin version of the soviet system.)

Yup, I think he is. Communism is a nice sounding ideal, and most Americans want it when they don't recognize it. However, it has similar failings to capitalism, and neither will stabilize indefinitely.

I believe that the issue is not that free trade fails but that free trade unchecked will ultimately fail.

Certainly true enough.

America turned socialist in the 30's, it was only during the 50's that protestant work-ethic kicked in and started destabilizing the system "for our own good."

kww: The Americans of the 30's seemed to be of a more responsible lot, the great depression will do that to you.

The Americans of the thirties caused the great depression. Enough said.

:-) Not until the 60's did it seem that America started getting sloppy with it's socialism.

If by sloppy you mean people had enough money and free-time to recognize the fact that the American dream was in most ways a lie, then yes.

Gryndyl: look, just because we started job works in the depression and welfare shortly after, that does not mean we have gone Swedish in the white house. (no offense to Swedes... I've heard good things about Swedish socialism)

Well, I think it did. We were handing out government money to the poor far more then than now. And things were getting better then, where now they're getting worse. I sense a pattern.

The strongest benefit to the system would be if people stopped trying to fix it.

kww: With most of the people who are trying to fix it I'm finding myself in agreement.

> Gryndyl: no, it is the demonisation of those who can help by those in power that break solid and productive change down.

Bush was elected to power to "fix America" in the same way that Obi-wan brought balance to the force. At a grass-roots level real productive change has been taking place, but it has been undermined by bright-eyed politicians trying to retain tired old concepts that failed in the fifties.

Next part I'll summarize, see if we're on the same page. In Europe you can get food and good public transport, in Canada they've got food and prescription drugs... But here you can get a nice car!

Its all give and take. I'll take the US, b/c at least here, I feel as though I rise and fall mainly of my own accord. In socialism, you give away half your earnings and hope that the greater good includes you.

The greater good does includes you. If you're starving, then so's everyone else in you class of people. So they'll feed you. I've got my degree, but I'm seeing people with 20 years of experience and three degrees who are out of work since Bush took office. There's no money for extras anymore, and I'm an extra. heck, 90% of our economy was artificially propped up by extras, and it's all coming down now. That's the greater good, and no-one's watching after it. Think John Nash.