Interesting how socialists hate democracy.
What side of the street are you working? What is Unionism but militant socialism ... and I heard your blessings of the brotherhoods....
Woof!
Interesting how socialists hate democracy.
To bad for you that having been in a union I found it more democratic than our own goverment.
If unions were so socialist then why do many exsist in the private sector?
I could say that most folks who hate unions have no real power in life and have a jealous streak beside their yellow one.
Basically I agree with all you've said, decentralization, community, stronger grassroots democracy. But I'll disagree on one small point capitalism and socialism are not two sides of the same coin. Capitalism and enterprise are not the same thing. Capitalism services capital, and nothing else, commerce and capitalism are not the same thing, commerce is all about bussiness and people and stable communitys, capitalism is about accumulation of capital, it does not care what commerce it has to monopolize and concentrate to meet that definition. Enterprise and capitalism are not the same thing, socialism easily embraces free enterprise and commerce, capitalism, through investment of capital seekd to concentrate and dominate and finaly monopolize and there is no way to turn it off once it's turned on untill the capital has eaten everything in it's path. That's why it is rightly considered the most destructive system ever put in place. The first thing capitalism destroys is regional and local commerce and enterprise, in other words it feeds directly on those hosts untill they are pale imitations of what they were and eventually dead, capitalism is a viral parasiticle system of wealth accumulation.
Because private sector is decidedly capitalist. Yeah, you could say just about anything you want to say. Guess that's the price some of us pay for freedom. Really, it might be good things if you weren't seeking an adversary and you knew what you were talking about.
Woof!
Sorry little doggy but I just choose not to paint myself into an idealogical corner like the left and you do.
Sorry little doggy but I just choose not to paint myself into an idealogical corner like the left and you do.
I never said in general weather private or public services were delivered more efficiently. What I said is badly managed private enterprise tends to go out of business where as badly manged public services keep sucking the blood of the tax payer.
The voter is not in control of government services. Bureaucrats are in control of government services. Moreover, the larger the public sector becomes the harder it becomes to trim the fat as more and more people become dependent upon government sectioned garnishing of peoples salaries in the private sector.
I agree that Canada health care works well as to weather it is better then US health care that depends on your disposable income. Canadian health care is a one size fits all heath care system. Americans have greater flexibility to choose the plan that suites them. American's spend more on health care because they get a greater amount of service.
As for calling me a believer in "Reagoonomics economics". The size of government grew faster under Ronald Reagan then it did under Jimmy Carter. I hardly see Reagan as a shiny example of a capitalist leader.
Your right. The more money you have the more money you spend. That's why people say it is never enough. Speaking of supply and demand, if people have more money to spend what do you think that does to the supply of houses. If less people are working for the government how do you think that helps the supply of construction workers or factory workers. Business must face the laws of supply and demand. People vote in a Capitalist economy with there dollars for the services they want which gives them far more say in what goods are produced then under a socialist system.
Banking is not a free market system. We can discuss banking reform in another thread.
I already told you I'm know fan of Regan. Also despite Bush's mismanagement of the economy the United States still has lower debt per Capita then Canada. There are also plenty of market controls in the United States. The US government is not lean. That said we can agree that it is more lean then Canada and coincidently it has a higher GDP per capita then Canada:
United States
GDP (PPP) 2007 estimate - Total $13,675,129 m[4] (1st) - Per capita $43,444 (4th)
Canada
GDP (PPP) 2006 estimate - Total $1.165 trillion (11th) - Per capita $35,600 (10th)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
In my view, your comparison of the relative GDP to government ratios is in error...
King George VI in the 1940's acknowledged the relationship between population and the comparative rate of industrialization, stating that the lesser the density of population, the greater the barrier to industrialization...
It would follow that a country with a dispersed population would have a higher cost of government than one of higher population densities...
In comparisons of this sort between the US and Canada are essentially comparing apples and oranges....Compare US performance to its peer group in terms of population density and disbursal and see how they stack up on a per capita basis....
We have to keep the capitalists around until they invent replicators for food and goods.- then we can use them for feedstock;-)Excellent essay, CAPITALISM MUST DIE!
Well we could burn them like cords of wood - btw what is GMO?I hadn't thought of a use for them till you mentioned it. If they are successful with thier GMO plans we're all screwed anyway.
Well we could burn them like cords of wood - btw what is GMO?
Lester, on captalists, "We have to keep the capitalists around until they invent replicators for food and goods.- then we can use them for feedstock"
You mean stock feed don't you?
GMO food, is like GM food, but worse... somehow. You may recall our friends from Saskatchewan and the conspiracy that spawned canola oil. Canola oil seemed to be a good and popular oil. Ha! At least, we thought they were our friends.