BF2S Forums Occupy Wall Street

China is already bailing out your lifestyle, stop complaining.

Which is nice because it means lower taxes for you.

For the time being anyway

Jenspm wrote:

Jay wrote:

Personally, I like the idea of states competing with one another for population. Let Vermont go totally socialist. Let New Hampshire go totally libertarian. See what works. See what doesn't work.

Benefits the poor, not the rich. People would use the benefits of socialism until they've moved up the income brackets and then fuck off to some low-tax state and complain about how 'Socialist state A' steals all their money.

I believe the counterargument is that the wage base would eventually dry up, leaving the poor without a pool to draw benefits from as the "rich" leave to other states that don't soak them quite so much for benefits they don't realize themselves.

Jenspm wrote:

Jay wrote:

Personally, I like the idea of states competing with one another for population. Let Vermont go totally socialist. Let New Hampshire go totally libertarian. See what works. See what doesn't work.

Benefits the poor, not the rich. People would use the benefits of socialism until they've moved up the income brackets and then fuck off to some low-tax state and complain about how 'Socialist state A' steals all their money.

Most people that use the benefits of socialism never advance at all.

I remember reading this quite a while ago, pretty sure it makes a similar point (on how successful entrepreneurs use the benefits of socialism): http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in … alism.html

Jenspm wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Benefits the poor, not the rich. People would use the benefits of socialism until they've moved up the income brackets and then fuck off to some low-tax state and complain about how 'Socialist state A' steals all their money.

Most people that use the benefits of socialism never advance at all.

I disagree. A solid safety net makes entrepreneurship more lucrative, for example. So they use the benefits without actually triggering a payout. Most of them have also benefited from free education, and again, the security of free healthcare whether or not they actually get ill and use it.

Then your fears are false, are they not? Businesses should flock to socialist leaning states, not run away from them. Funny how that never happens in the real world.

Jenspm wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

I disagree. A solid safety net makes entrepreneurship more lucrative, for example. So they use the benefits without actually triggering a payout. Most of them have also benefited from free education, and again, the security of free healthcare whether or not they actually get ill and use it.

Then your fears are false, are they not? Businesses should flock to socialist leaning states, not run away from them. Funny how that never happens in the real world.

Well of course they won't - a foreign already-built-up business won't be benefiting from what a socialist government does for start-ups. Companies started up with the help of a socialist state, though, often feel a sense of loyality and choose to stay.

The government is not a good replacement for venture capitalism. See: Solyndra.

Cybargs wrote:

Using a population of 5 million, in a very urbanized society with little to no large economic disparity due to a largely homogenized society should not equate to how to run a country with 300 million people, largely diverse populations from rural to highly urbanized, different cultural and climatic factors for regions and various other shit for the USA. What the US should do is find solutions to lower the real costs of healthcare, not subsidize it.

Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingding!

Winnarwinnarwinnarwinnarwinnar!

Jay wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Jay wrote:

Personally, I like the idea of states competing with one another for population. Let Vermont go totally socialist. Let New Hampshire go totally libertarian. See what works. See what doesn't work.

Benefits the poor, not the rich. People would use the benefits of socialism until they've moved up the income brackets and then fuck off to some low-tax state and complain about how 'Socialist state A' steals all their money.

Most people that use the benefits of socialism never advance at all.

All this trash about socialism, Germany, Sweden, Norway etc are doing just fine.

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Most people that use the benefits of socialism never advance at all.

All this trash about socialism, Germany, Sweden, Norway etc are doing just fine.

So I heard the rest of Europe is doing really well too.

The problem with the EU is that a number of countries were allowed into the monetary union that never should have been. There are aspects of social democracy that do work and many countries in Europe have done a very good job in implementing them in a sustainable way (i.e. all the countries in the EMU and many other EU countries sans those currently involved in the current sovereign debt crisis). Just because you have some riffraff doesn't automatically mean it is all broken.

Anyone could have looked at Greece in detail and known that what they have/had there is impossible to support in the long-term. But then it's no real surprise when you think that Greece almost went full-on communist back during the Cold War. A lot of extreme leftist things were left there that had no real basis in reality. In countries like Germany and Austria, however, you have a system that while it has its faults, it does support itself in a very good manner. HOWEVER, what works in one country does not mean it will work in OTHER countries. There are historical and cultural reasons for the various systems that each country has and you cannot simply copy and paste them around the world and expect them to work.

Cybargs wrote:

So I heard the rest of Europe is doing really well too.

Hint: Its not so important which fiscal/economic system a country uses, its more important the country is well managed and other policies are in place.

CapnNismo wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

All this trash about socialism, Germany, Sweden, Norway etc are doing just fine.

So I heard the rest of Europe is doing really well too.

The problem with the EU is that a number of countries were allowed into the monetary union that never should have been. There are aspects of social democracy that do work and many countries in Europe have done a very good job in implementing them in a sustainable way (i.e. all the countries in the EMU and many other EU countries sans those currently involved in the current sovereign debt crisis). Just because you have some riffraff doesn't automatically mean it is all broken.

Anyone could have looked at Greece in detail and known that what they have/had there is impossible to support in the long-term. But then it's no real surprise when you think that Greece almost went full-on communist back during the Cold War. A lot of extreme leftist things were left there that had no real basis in reality. In countries like Germany and Austria, however, you have a system that while it has its faults, it does support itself in a very good manner. HOWEVER, what works in one country does not mean it will work in OTHER countries. There are historical and cultural reasons for the various systems that each country has and you cannot simply copy and paste them around the world and expect them to work.

Austria and Germany have massive amounts of debt. So does France, and the UK, and every other nation with socialist systems in place. All this debt means the systems are not stable, nor are they sustainable. They're borrowing against the future to maintain today's prosperity levels. At some point those debts come due and the whole thing collapses.

The only cases in which socialism works moderately well is in countries that are resource rich and population poor. Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Australia have great mineral wealth per capita and the exploitation of this keeps their nations economies humming even during recessions. The rest of us? Not so lucky.

All I know is that US spending levels are not sustainable. We need a culture change in general in regards to spending (which has happened to some extent due to the recession) and we need our leaders to jump on board. Frankly, Keynes and his spend spend spend for growth economics has done more to fuck up the world than Marx has. I'd much rather live in a world where credit was abolished and people and companies were forced to save for the things they want. It would be a much more stable and sustainable form of economy with less boom and bust cycles. C'est la vie.