1. TGIF for sure, as the metals markets absorbed the early attack and came back strong by end of day. Going into the weekend having very nice gains on the week. Even with the Dollar moving to the up yesterday. Metals showing real nice strength the last few weeks now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Need more resources for the Industry Links. Have some guns/ammo, preps, pm dealers, and charts, but need more to make it a go to resource and replace bookmarks. Please send me a conversation with your ideas for others we should add. TIA. Together we will make it a great resource.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 2/6/16 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1157.7 Up 41.30-- Silver $14.80 Up 56 ct-- Oil $30.89 DOWN 2.73-- USD $97.05 DOWN 2.60-- Based on near term futures contract--- At JMB Current price AGE $1232.39 (1), SAE $18.46 (20)
  4. Please use the following for log on: www.goldismoney2.com We have moved to a new server. Please reset bookmark accordingly
  5. Added Heartland Precious Metals out of OK and LA to the map, Added Texas Precious Metals, and Added Provident Metals.

Why do Democrats want Socialism?

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by curmudgeonista, Feb 18, 2011.



  1. curmudgeonista

    curmudgeonista Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    2,671
    Trophy Points:
    38
    (vanity post...> rant)

    'Got to talking to the the counter lady a Dunkin' Donuts today.

    She has an accent I couldn't quite place, so I asked her where she was from. "Sweden" was the answer (no, not a Swedish Bikini Team type... she's about 50-something and overweight... but a pleasant enough person).

    Just for small-talk, I asked her how she liked it here in the U.S., and frankly, her answer caught me off guard.

    She said, "I really miss living in a Socialist country. I miss getting 8-weeks of vacation every year like we do back home. I have four jobs here. There I would have one job and get paid enough to raise my kids and never have to worry."

    Now, I'm assuming that the four jobs are all part-time, and if the doughnut shop thing is any indication, I doubt any require much skill or education. And, she didn't say "doughnut cashiers are undervalued and underpaid here in the U.S." She said it was Socialism that provided the way-of-life she missed.

    Anyway, what she said next really put a cap on it:

    "And I really miss the social life back in Sweden," she said, "People here are always working. Back there we have plenty of time to enjoy ourselves"

    Soooooo, I thought to myself, you don't want to work, or not much, and you want the government to provide for you and your family?

    I felt like asking her where she thinks the money for that comes from, but I did not want to be confrontational, so I bit my lip (I really prefer my occasional stops for coffee and a doughnut to remain congenial). I doubt she'd care where it came from, anyway, just as long as it came her way.

    But, okay, I get it. People with no ambition and no real marketable skills love the idea of a government that will level the playing field, redistribute the wealth of those who are producers, and make sure that they're taken care of and have plenty of time to enjoy the fruits of others' labor... and there are a lot of them.

    Yep, there are a lot of them... and that's the key, in my eyes, to why so many politicians go down this road too. It's an easy path to power. It's a very classic tale of using the taxpayers' money to buy votes and power for the elite leaders of the Socialist movement.

    IMO, Democrat politicians could care less about substance or ideals, regardless of what you may hear them proclaim when they're stumping. It's votes and power they're after. And any way's the only way. Period. When they tell you "it's for the children", you can bet what they really mean is "it's for the people who will vote for me and keep me in power."

    Our current POTUS is a prime example. How did we get saddled with such an inexperienced, unaccomplished egomaniac, except for that "power paid with promises" formula? If you imagine that Obama is there to do anything other than cater to the idiots who will exchange votes for entitlements, you're kiddin' yourself. And if you think those voters expect anything less than a government that will take care of them, and make sure they don't have to work too hard to get everything they want, and time to enjoy it, you're as crazy as they are lazy!
     
  2. Brio

    Brio Beer Babe! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    5,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Flip side of that is...everybody in Sweden gets paid well, has 8 weeks vacation, a social life and raises their own children.
    Everybody in the US works like dogs, rarely get time off, can't afford to get sick and pay others to raise their children because they're working too many jobs.

    Why?

    (no that isn't an argument for socialism, just looking at the flip side)
     
  3. curmudgeonista

    curmudgeonista Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    2,671
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I dunno'. Maybe we should talk to the ones in Sweden who are bustin' their tales to pay for all those that don't.
     
    Nickelless, Gcubed, TomD and 2 others like this.
  4. GodspeedMetals

    GodspeedMetals Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,707
    Likes Received:
    535
    Trophy Points:
    0
    we can debate democrat versus republican till we're blue in the face. It's like fighting over which soda is better, coke or pepsi... Either way, both will kill ya when fresh water is all you need... Both political parties are crooked - they've been bought off (most of them). Socialism is unnatural - it's a theory cooked up in a lab by rich men to scare us - to control us. Freedom, of every kind, is all we need.
     
  5. bemac

    bemac Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,932
    Likes Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Why do Democrats want socialism?"

    I don't think they want socialism any more than Republicans want free market capitalism. All they want is to get re-elected, so all they will support is corporatism.
     
  6. bemac

    bemac Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,932
    Likes Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No way. I can happily drink a coke or a pepsi.
     
  7. Brio

    Brio Beer Babe! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    5,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So only some Swedes get decent jobs, good pay and vacations? What leads you to that conclusion?
     
  8. southfork

    southfork Mother Lode Found Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    6,865
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They want it for control, they think you are like chickens in a hen house waiting to be fed, of course they only want it for you and me, not them.
     
  9. budfox

    budfox I have become comfortably numb... Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,050
    Likes Received:
    2,887
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Fresh air inspector
    Location:
    In a van down by the river
    We're in the pickle we're in due to our early conditioning in wanting 'stuff' and wanting it now. So our kids are indoctrinated early on in college into the credit trap. From there in order to keep up the social status this credit enabled us to buy things we didn't need with money we didn't have. Now most of the population are 'credit slaves' with no way out. Capitalism with the amount of greed involved is no longer sustainable here. Socialism and communism won't help us either now. We're totally fuced.................Unless of course if you're prepared.
     
    Irons likes this.
  10. Russkie

    Russkie Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    606
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Wild Steppe
    Sweden doesn't have the huge income disparity that the US does.

    In their society, they value all being closer to the same economic level. Good for them.

    Each nation has the right to do what's best for them. Sweden's model works for the Swedes.
     
  11. nergal

    nergal Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Democrats want socialism for the lazy, malcontent, underachieving, unwashed masses to control them.

    Republicans want socialism for the corporate/banker class so they can control the lazy, malcontent, underachieving unwashed masses.

    Six of one, half dozen of the other . . . .

    Neither side has any interest in free enterprise. It's all about lawyers creating an environment to line their pockets by bleeding common, hard working citizens.
     
  12. Russkie

    Russkie Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    606
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Wild Steppe
    As to the OP, I think democrats are all different. Some of them want special advantages for their group, some are moderates, some are idealists.

    I'm pretty sure not all of them want socialism, any more than all republicans want whatever the hell they're supposed to want.

    It is a continuum of using government power, and the Democrats are more towards the end of using government power in populist ways, whereas Republicans tend towards using governemtn power in ways which benefit the upper classes. That's how it looks to me at least.
     
  13. odu

    odu Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Also, they have better infrastructure, more accessible health care and education, less poverty, less illiteracy, a lower infant mortality rate, a higher life expectancy, less crime, a sturdier economy, and... less personal and federal debt per capita.

    Also, the economies in the world that do moderately well at the moment all have what most here would call "interfering governments", as did the USA when they were up and coming in the 19th and early 20th century.

    <irony>But I agree that overwhelming historical and factual evidence of what works and what does not should not get in the way of pet theories about economics.</irony>
     
    Ronnie Mexico, Brio and Russkie like this.
  14. Russkie

    Russkie Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    606
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Wild Steppe
    I tell people in Russia that they should start a war with Sweden and lose, so Sweden can take charge and unfvck things around here.

    I think the Swedish system works largely because it is being praticed in Sweden. It is a small country with a homogenous, civilized population. It would be much different to try the same thing in America.
     
    argentos, TomD and JFN111 like this.
  15. Brio

    Brio Beer Babe! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    5,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good reply Budfox. In part yes, but I think you're looking at the effect not the cause. The cause is the tremendous amount of money going into sustaining the US as the world's sole superpower, the effect is deliberately dumbing down the nation enough to continue paying for it. And the bank bailouts, what $13 trillion now? The poor, unemployed, lazy, irresponsible, they aren't your problem though they are an easy scapegoat. Your problem is allocation of the incredible resources the US has. Trillions for war, trillions for the banksters, and Obama cuts LIHEAP in half (a whopping 2.5 billion)? The anger here at GIM is so misplaced.
     
    budfox and Sindgefallen like this.
  16. JFN111

    JFN111 Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    93
    You hit the nail on the head.
     
  17. odu

    odu Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    :D Вы Россией?

    Good point, but still, a small shift in that direction could perhaps help. Once the middle class has disappeared it will be too late and we'll see a new version of "The Grapes of Wrath" on the bookshelves.

    Indeed. What I mean is, perhaps a little of that money could be used to become a little more "Swedish". Just a thought.
     
  18. Russkie

    Russkie Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,169
    Likes Received:
    606
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Wild Steppe
    Nyet, tolko zdyes xhivy. V Moskvye, pochti devyat let uzhye. Po-Russkie pomymaesh? Molodets chto pechataesh, ya ne mogu.
     
  19. odu

    odu Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Я немного говорю по русский. Я голландский. Я не социалист, я инженер, я люблю то, что функции.
    Back to English, we're probably annoying people.
     
  20. AceNZ

    AceNZ Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    484
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    American in New Zealand
    (notes from "Capitalist Manifesto" by Andrew Bernstein):

    Sweden isn't a true socialist country. It's a mixed economy, also known as a "capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements."

    Sweden built its initial prosperity, in a period up through 1970, through capitalism and free-trade. Starting in the 19th century, land reform enabled farmers to enclose common areas, creating greater private ownership and incentive, leading to increased agricultural productivity. In addition, medieval guilds, which gave monopolies to artisans, were abolished in 1846, and business freedom was guaranteed by law in 1864. Since Sweden had timber, iron and other minerals to export, a policy of free trade was established. "Thus, from 1870 to 1930 Sweden was characterized by limited government, free trade, free enterprise and social mobility." In short, Sweden built its prosperity on the basis of capitalism.

    The Social Democrats didn't come to power until the 1930s, and though they might have believed in the nationalization of business in theory, they didn't do it in practice. As late as 1960, Sweden's tax rates were roughly equal to America's at the turn of the century.

    It was only post-1960 that Sweden began a pronounced move toward a social welfare state. Massive welfare programs were introduced, major industries were nationalized, and taxes were raised significantly. The tax level is now the highest in the industrialized world, and income is thereby significantly restricted. Holding a job became unnecessary to gain income, and hard work was rewarded with higher taxes, not higher profits. Productivity began to decline. For example, in 1990, Swedish doctors worked only 1600 hours per year, compared to 2800 hours for US doctors. Sweden has a population of 7 million, of which 2.7 million (38%) aren't working, most of whom live off of some kind of state-financed welfare program. For 25 yrs, Sweden's economic growth has been slower than that of other industrialized countries, and in the early 1990s, the economy shrunk by 5%. With such a decline in productivity, even Sweden's massive income tax and 25% national sales tax are inadequate to cover government spending. "Sweden's experience demonstrates that over time a welfare state based on socialist-inspired ideas of income redistribution erodes wealth-creating forces."

    How does Sweden pay for its welfare state? By a great deal of borrowing. Sweden's national debt is nearly equal to its GDP; just to pay the interest on it requires 7% of everything produced in the country.

    Two conclusions can be drawn: first, Sweden rose to prosperity as a capitalist system, and the massive socialist elements of the post-1960s period is slowly lowering its standard of living.

    Second, Swedes are wealthy to a significant degree because they possess automobiles, airplanes, electric lights, telephones, TVs, modern medical and agricultural technology, computers, Internet access, etc. But those products were not invented in Sweden or any other semi-socialist state. Overwhelmingly, they were invented in capitalist America.
     
    Lore and (deleted member) like this.
  21. GOLDZILLA

    GOLDZILLA Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus Midas Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,831
    Likes Received:
    4,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because they get to steal resources/money without having to produce anything, and they get to lord over the masses, which is what they crave.
     
    Nickelless likes this.
  22. TomD

    TomD It blowed up, y'all Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,815
    Likes Received:
    4,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Does riding a bicycle 150 miles/week count as an o
    Location:
    Florida Panhandle
    Why do Dems want socialism? Because that is the way to power and perks, vote for me and I will give you goodies. Sweden is evidence that socialism can be a good model for governance but in only a limited circumstance. Game theory tends to bear out that any system of distribution of resources based on common trust will break down with a certain level of cheaters. In a small, advanced, homogeneous society such as Sweden, the free loading percentage of the population would be below the trip point. In the US, the percentage of freeloaders is massive, that system can't work here.
     
  23. Brio

    Brio Beer Babe! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    5,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wouldn't it make sense then, to find out the percentages and demographics of Americans that really are freeloading? I see many assumptions but few facts on the actual numbers. I haven't been able to find any myself though I've looked.
     
  24. odu

    odu Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    True. Perhaps the best system lies somewhere in the middle. Nobody is knocking capitalism, but more than unguided capitalism is needed for a stable and pleasant society

    Also true, but under strong guidance of government. The USA came to prosperity through protectionism and government interference on behalf of companies, the Banana Wars just being one example. Unbound capitalism under tiny government is a myth.

    European Social Democrat parties don't believe in nationalisation, someone is confusing communism and socialism here. Historically, a lot of enterprise started out "nationalised", especially rail transport, roads, and telecommunications. At least in The Netherlands and Great Britain, privatisation has brought higher prices and lower quality, without noticable effect on taxation levels. Not necessarily the best way to go.

    I will freely admit the Swedes overshot the mark.
    Hours worked per year is NOT a measure of productivity, on the contrary. The USA has low productivity compared to most North-European states.

    Whereas we all know the USA is doing great.

    First automobile: German
    First general-purpose computer: German
    First electric light: Canadian
    The WWW: invented by a Brit
    First helicopter: European
    The internet was developed in a fully government subsidised environment.

    Facts are bitches.
     
  25. Irons

    Irons Deep Sixed Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    17,533
    Likes Received:
    15,427
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I cannot touch a pepsi, it has that &$^*$# obama symbol on it.
     
    bemac likes this.
  26. TomD

    TomD It blowed up, y'all Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,815
    Likes Received:
    4,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Does riding a bicycle 150 miles/week count as an o
    Location:
    Florida Panhandle
    Your question reduces to this: Given a cradle to grave social state where all are provided for more or less identically independent of their economic input, what percentage of the population would elect to contribute to that economy to the best of their ability? At what exact percentage of the population electing to "freeload" from the people still electing to produce does the societal construct break down?

    How many Americans would elect to receive benefits in lieu of work if the benefits were sufficient to maintain a significant lifestyle? I don't know the number but it would be a bunch, far past the threshold of tolerance of the remaining producers and the system would collapse.
     
  27. Irons

    Irons Deep Sixed Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    17,533
    Likes Received:
    15,427
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Easy, it is roughly the same percentage that votes for the democrat candidate in presidental elections. 47% of americans over the age of 18 do not pay any income taxes.


    47% will pay no federal income tax
    An increasing number of households end up owing nothing in major federal taxes, but the situation may not be sustainable over the long run.



    http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm
     
    Gcubed likes this.
  28. Brio

    Brio Beer Babe! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    5,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see your point but the assumption is still being made that a majority are freeloaders by choice and opportunity. I would still like to see solid numbers on abuse of the system. It's a fact that the heaviest welfare states are Republican not Democrat.
     
  29. Brio

    Brio Beer Babe! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    5,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]
     
  30. curmudgeonista

    curmudgeonista Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    2,671
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Not what I said. Not even close. For the many to be rewarded for doing less while earning more than was deserved, there must be those who must do more only to be left with less than they deserved after the Socialists take from them.
     
  31. Dave Thomas

    Dave Thomas Guest

    Sssssh! Go to bed early Brio, Shortstack is going to leave you a pile of Conneticuit state quarters under your pillow tonight!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2011
    TomD likes this.
  32. Unclad Lad

    Unclad Lad Rhodium Imam Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Keeping those damn kids off my lawn!
    Location:
    Fetal position
    To call Democrats "Socialists" is misleading and inaccurate, becomes few of them really want the government to run and manage everything. Instead, they're Technocrats, who believe that government, and the intelligent elites who run it, can direct everything through extensive regulation of capital and social programs. They truly believe that more government can be more effective government.

    I understand it seems a small difference. But Obamacare is the perfect example. Hillary Clinton wanted a single-payer system for everyone, with the government as the sole provider. That's socialist. Obama wants private insurers to continue to provide coverage, but has limited those companies by enacting numerous regulations, rules, and penalties. Penalties are also in place for private citizens who don't buy it. In effect, everyone is required to have access to health insurance, or else. This solves the "health-care issue" in the same way that the homeless issue can be resolved by requiring all Americans to buy a house, and forcing builders and banks to lower the cost of their products and services so "the people" can afford it.

    It's time to get away from the "socialist" badge, although I understand the difference between that and "technocrat" might not be graspable to many.
     
    bemac likes this.
  33. bemac

    bemac Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,932
    Likes Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, no, she was the one who wanted the mandate. We got what she wanted, and what Obama opposed during campaigning...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhYQ-GQyEB0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

    :D

    The rest of your post is spot on. It is not socialism, it's corporatism, or fascism if you're not afraid to use that word. The gov't isn't going to beat up on the "evil insurance companies," instead they got a gift, a big one. The mandate.
     
  34. Brio

    Brio Beer Babe! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,242
    Likes Received:
    5,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :coolbeer:
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  35. bemac

    bemac Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,932
    Likes Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If someone wants to argue that socialism is a better system than capitalism, I'd say that's just dumb. A better argument is that socialism is a better system than corporatism.

    Sweden doesn't have a $1 trillion a year foreign policy. They can afford a socialistic health care system.
     
  36. Irons

    Irons Deep Sixed Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    17,533
    Likes Received:
    15,427
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I say pull all US military bases in Europe, and then let's see what they can afford when they get done fighting.

    My guess is Germany will be huge.
     
  37. bemac

    bemac Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,932
    Likes Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd cut most of the military bases we have overseas. We are paying for a lot of peoples' protection. Now, I've heard people support the idea of other nations paying us for what we do. That idea, IMHO, is a very naive and dangerous one.
     
    Irons likes this.
  38. dc7

    dc7 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From "Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race," by Dr. Samuel A. Cartwright, an exerpt on how to treat "Drapetomania", the "mental disease" that caused black slaves to run away:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3106t.html

    Ahhhh..... Care, kindness, attention and humanity...... No thanks. I prefer Liberty.

    Ahhhh..... I really prefer Liberty.

    If we had sound money people could save safely just by putting aside a some of thier paycheck. People could reasonably expect that, over time, living below their means now would be rewarded with improved finacial security and quality of life later. As people build savings, they increase their control over thier own lives, and have the option to work less and spend more time with thier kids. Imagine a country where a large percentage of the people had homes and cars fully paid for, no credit card bills, and decent amounts of savings...... where many were in a position that they could afford to quit thier jobs or "drop out" if they really had too..... how much desire would a nation of such people have for a government that tried to exert too much control over thier lives?

    But official government policy is based on the the claim that people who hold onto thier money are "hoarding wealth" by "taking money out of the system", and are bad for the economy. Without even getting into how that's wrong, for now...... Let's look at the government's policy:

    A constant year over year inflation erodes the value of money, punishing people for trying to save. People are denied a safe way to simply live below thier means and put some cash aside, slowly building wealth, for a home, car, school, or in case of sickness, or unemployment, or just so that one day you get ahead not be so dependant on the next paycheck or the economy. To hold onto the value of any savings it must be gambled by giving it up and putting it back into the system (invested) for others to spend or borrow, while hoping it will be returned with enough "profit" to at least beat inflation after taxes.

    Such a system rewards a lifestyle of borrowing and spending now to be paid for later. It should be no suprise when this creates a consumer culture that lives above it's means on debt. That values credit cards, flashy apearances, image, instant gratification, get rich quick, and expensive material things more than the ability to work hard and build some independance and financial security. The system is destructive of that ability.

    Once the people are made dependent on a system that steals thier security and independence, is it any wonder they turn to the authorities to take care of them?

    A story about Stalin:

     
    TomD likes this.
  39. Unclad Lad

    Unclad Lad Rhodium Imam Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    1,050
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Keeping those damn kids off my lawn!
    Location:
    Fetal position
    Fascism is a form of socialism. I don't think we're there. Yet.
     
  40. Ronnie Mexico

    Ronnie Mexico Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Occupation:
    Soldier of Fortune
    Location:
    Glued behind the wallpaper
    This story is absolute BS. Stalin suffered a massive stroke in the early morning hours of March 1, 1953 after a night of drinking and watching films. This stroke paralyzed him and he couldn't talk, he died 4 days later. The only thing he could do was mutter some inaudible words and that's about it.
     

Share This Page