User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: The most brutal atrocities of the 20th century

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Semitic Duwa View Post
    "Social democracy" is an oxymoron as well as a euphemism for soft dictatorship, if you have any doubts about that have a look at Sweden, it's a dictatorship now, they've made it official back there by calling off the 2015 elections and arranging for the Social Democrats to stay in power until 2022 at the very least. Free speech has been totally obliterated in Sweden, you can go to jail for holding the wrong opinions. The myth about social democracy working in Scandinavia is just that: A myth.

    Case in point: Socialism, in all of its forms, is authoritarian, even while masquerading as a democratic ideology ("social democracy" AKA one-party democracy).

    But that's above the point really, you don't even need to go to Scandinavia to realise that "Social democracy" is a bad joke... It didn't work in "Palestine" (Fata7), it didn't work in India (INC) and it didn't work in South Africa (ANC) so why on earth do you expect it to work in Scandinavia?
    Agreed. With exception to the fact that Sweden enacted serious and commendable reforms to their model of social democracy- at least sufficiently enough to distinguish themselves from the socialist orthodoxy of the past . For instance, they axed the wealth tax, reduced marginal corporate and individual income tax rates, introduced school choice, and liquidated alot of their debt. However their current paradigm of "welfare capitalism" is still vulnerable to the pulsations of centrally planned thinking. But interestingly enough, the fact that the socialists in Sweden had to make some of these concessions provides us with a controlled test of how pragmatically necessary free market reforms are for sustaining any economy.

  2. Likes Semitic Duwa liked this post
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by janoubi View Post
    Not necessarily -- authoritarian application of socialism is. Would you consider social democratic Nordic states to be a plague, for example?

    Venture capitalism (especially when left unchecked) is as much of a plague as authoritarian socialism (aka communism)
    I beg to differ (read my post to semitic). Its as simple as comparing "unchecked venture capitalism" to communism. Its not one-to-one. Look at the most economically free countries (which ironically enough use to be massive poverty centers run by communism, i.e. Asia and the Baltic bloc) and compare them to how they prospered under state ownership. Since China lifted price controls and liberalised their markets, poverty has fallen by a factor of 8. Since capitalism was introduced to the poor world, poverty has fallen overall by half which has mostly been attributed to economic growth. If you look at the poorest stratum in the most capitalist countries, their income exceeds that of the overall average in the economically least free nations. You just cant argue with these numbers. Enough with lame cliches and platitudes like "both extremes are equally bad." No, they are not. One extreme produces an explosion of GDP, technological boom, literacy, life expectancy, amongst many other measurable indices, whereas the other extreme produces poverty, famine, war, and moral slavery. When you sum up the points, one blows the other out of the water.

    The objective truth is not an equal balance between two propositions. It is the one which is most supported by facts and numbers.

  4. Thanks Semitic Duwa thanked for this post
    Likes Semitic Duwa liked this post
  5. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,660
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Al-Razi View Post
    I beg to differ (read my post to semitic). Its as simple as comparing "unchecked venture capitalism" to communism. Its not one-to-one. Look at the most economically free countries (which ironically enough use to be massive poverty centers run by communism, i.e. Asia and the Baltic bloc) and compare them to how they prospered under state ownership. Since China lifted price controls and liberalised their markets, poverty has fallen by a factor of 8. Since capitalism was introduced to the poor world, poverty has fallen overall by half which has mostly been attributed to economic growth. If you look at the poorest stratum in the most capitalist countries, their income exceeds that of the overall average in the economically least free nations. You just cant argue with these numbers. Enough with lame cliches and platitudes like "both extremes are equally bad." No, they are not. One extreme produces an explosion of GDP, technological boom, literacy, life expectancy, amongst many other measurable indices, whereas the other extreme produces poverty, famine, war, and moral slavery. When you sum up the points, one blows the other out of the water.

    The objective truth is not an equal balance between two propositions. It is the one which is most supported by facts and numbers.
    Are you saying that a greedy system where the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer, where people can only access what they are afford to access, where private hospital denies poor people equal treatment, where landlords abuse the lands, where private companies can control every detail of your life is better than a country that provides a full health care, education and basic needs to its people?
    ? ? ?

  6. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ali_81 View Post
    Are you saying that a greedy system where the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer, where people can only access what they are afford to access, where private hospital denies poor people equal treatment, where landlords abuse the lands, where private companies can control every detail of your life is better than a country that provides a full health care, education and basic needs to its people?
    Do I have to repeat myself? The poor aren't "getting poorer" when they're climbing out of poverty. The rich aren't "getting richer" (so much as "rich" is defined as a homogeneous category over time) when formerly rich nations (e.g. Argentina) have fallen out of the top rung and formerly poor nations (e.g. Singapore, Japan, etc.) have climbed to the top. Even in the U.S., more than 90 percent of Americans who reach the top 1 percent will only enjoy that status for one year; while over 50 percent of Americans will at some point in their lifetime make it to the top 10 percent and more than 10 percent of Americans will make it to the top 1 percent. Only 1 percent will hold on to that wealth for a decade or more. Economic magnitudes, especially in terms of earned wealth over a lifetime, are not static by any means. We actually have another term for that, its called mobility.

    So no "the rich" (as I have defined above) do not get richer. My parents were borderline poor when they started as students who had just immigrated decades ago. Now, they are in at least the top 10 percent of earnings. There is definitely an accumulation of wealth going to the top socioeconomic percentile, but it is not an invariant category which is available only to one select demographic of people for an entire lifetime.

  7. Thanks Semitic Duwa thanked for this post
    Likes Semitic Duwa liked this post
  8. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,660
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Al-Razi View Post
    Do I have to repeat myself? The poor aren't "getting poorer" when they're climbing out of poverty. The rich aren't "getting richer" (so much as "rich" is defined as a homogeneous category over time) when formerly rich nations (e.g. Argentina) have fallen out of the top rung and formerly poor nations (e.g. Singapore, Japan, etc.) have climbed to the top. Even in the U.S., more than 90 percent of Americans who reach the top 1 percent will only enjoy that status for one year; while over 50 percent of Americans will at some point in their lifetime make it to the top 10 percent and more than 10 percent of Americans will make it to the top 1 percent. Only 1 percent will hold on to that wealth for a decade or more. Economic magnitudes, especially in terms of earned wealth over a lifetime, are not static by any means. We actually have another term for that, its called mobility.

    So no "the rich" (as I have defined above) do not get richer. My parents were borderline poor when they started as students who had just immigrated decades ago. Now, they are in at least the top 10 percent of earnings. There is definitely an accumulation of wealth going to the top socioeconomic percentile, but it is not an invariant category which is available only to one select demographic of people for an entire lifetime.
    I wonder if you will held the same position if you didn't belong to the select few that made it.

    BTW if your parents were borderline poor, how did they afford to pay for education? (I'm assuming that you are an american)
    ? ? ?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •