Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Gulag on August 22, 2015, 10:24:08 am
-
Craig Paul Roberts, the former Assistant Treasure Secretary in the Reagan Administration writes, "America is a gulag. We are ruled by a government that is devoid of all morality, all integrity, all compassion, all justice. The government of the United States stands for one thing and one thing only: Evil. You are part of the new Captive Nation."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-21/paul-craig-roberts-america-gulag
-
And, in a related news, Apollo astronaut says aliens prevented nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia:
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2015/08/19/32012895/
You got to trust when you hear it from the horse's mouth, right?
;)
-
Mouth?
-
I'm all for enabling people who are intellectually challenged into work. I'm not so sure about allowing them into such senior positions though. I think you should reconsider US policy in this regard.
-
Couldn't make heads or tails of Paul Robert's points. I can't even see a big picture POV. Looks like ramblings from a person with poor communication skills.
A large part of the imprisoned black population is comprised mostly of drug dealers and/or drug users. If they served their time, then let them out. However how long they stay in prison should be reasonable and based on the amount of damage on society caused by their behavior. Morality (whether they're a good or bad person) should have nothing to do with this.
Alcoholism has done more damage to society throughout history than drug use and there's very few in prison because of it. That's not justice nor is it moral or fair minded. It's quite stupid. Just wish being stupid or illogical was considered immoral.
-
It just doesn't matter anymore as long as consumerism has successfully replaced all other ideologies as the final ideology. by the way the much anticipated 60MP DSLR is just around tbe corner, and iPhone 7 plus will come out soon.
-
It just doesn't matter anymore as long as consumerism has successfully replaced all other ideologies as the final ideology.
I don't see any proof of this. You have some severe tunnel vision on how society functions and clearly have no clue about how much free information we have at our disposal to prevent this tunnel vision.
I guess you didn't see Jimmy Carter's interview this past week about him attempting to fight cancer at the age of 90 by taking a new experimental drug that ramps up the bodies immune system to fight the cancer that has spread to his brain and other organs. A miracle of science. Yes, one has to purchase (be a consumer) to get this new drug. It's the ideology of survival.
Why should that be news to you?
-
I'm all for enabling people who are intellectually challenged into work. I'm not so sure about allowing them into such senior positions though. I think you should reconsider US policy in this regard.
But then we might not have any candidates for president at all! :'(
-
We have a higher percentage of our people in prison than practically any other nation.
Why?
-
Because they've broken the law! Pretty simple.
-
We have a higher percentage of our people in prison than practically any other nation.
Why?
You should be asking those other nations how they manage corruption and petty crime. Also can we trust how they collect statistics on how many people are murdered in their country? Maybe the US has more technology and sophisticated ways of finding the bad guy and collecting this data which brings our numbers up. Maybe we're more efficient in this way.
Just because one doesn't see crime, doesn't mean it's not happening and that applies to all nations.
-
Because we have more laws to break than most any other nation. We elect politicians to "MAKE" laws and they write them by the boat load. They seldom repeal the old ones they supersede and simply pile up. It's to the point that everyday, every American is breaking a law somewhere and doesn't even know it.
-
We have a higher percentage of our people in prison than practically any other nation.
Why?
Prison is a big biz in America, and most prisons are operated by private companies. So prisoners in fact are ultra cheap labor.
Historically, people have been put in prison for various reasons but the most important reason has always been economic. Joseph Stalin's Gulag system was set up entirely out of economic reason - to modernize USSR using ultra cheap slaves, for example. Michel Foucault is right when he points out that the entire modernity is a gigantic prison in essence.
-
I'm only concerned about the laws that allow me to live a life that doesn't take away other's ability to do the same. Thinking of the other guy first instead of one's self helps in my not having to worry about laws known and unknown.
However, I have been violating a city/state ordinance for the past ten years by riding my bicycle on the sidewalk because I don't feel safe riding in the street knowing there's drivers distracted by their mobile devices. In the '70's when I was a kid there was no such ordinance for unmotorized vehicles in my state.
I think weekend riding "Lance Armstrong" spandex wearing lawyer types who bike competitively in large groups in Austin, TX came up with the new ordinance. Damn yuppies.
-
We have a higher percentage of our people in prison than practically any other nation.
Why?
Because they're black?
-
"Paranoia,
the destroyahh!"
From a great Kinks song, not about fear-addled ideologues per se but…
(IMO there are good reasons to be concerned about a whole range of both government and business practices. But embracing ideological simpletonism isn't a good response.)
-Dave-
-
Interesting idea, that maybe we're just catching more bad guys.
Not, I think, supported by facts, however. We have more lawbreakers because we have more laws to be broken.
Penalties for crack cocaine are higher than for powder, for example. The myth is that crack is more addictive, but that is simply false.
It is cheaper, however. An external observer might come to the conclusion that drug laws are designed to incarcerate the poor while letting the wealthy off the hook.
Just as a for instance.
It would be naive to ascribe this to some evil plot. It's not. It's simply a path of least resistance.
For example, one might observe that private prison operators lobby for more draconian laws, might choose to fund anti crime initiatives. Why not? Of course they do! And what's wrong with that?
Meanwhile the lads on wall street fund studies 'proving' that powder cocaine is harmless. Because they love blow, and it hasn't hurt them a bit! What's wrong with that?
So the lawmaker, caught between public pressure to do something about crime and the wall street boys, passes strict anti crack legislation. Everyone is happy. Except the poor.
Multiply this by 1000 more similar scenarios.
Capitalism is a marvelously efficient system once you let money control politics.
-
Interesting idea, that maybe we're just catching more bad guys.
Not, I think, supported by facts, however. We have more lawbreakers because we have more laws to be broken.
Penalties for crack cocaine are higher than for powder, for example. The myth is that crack is more addictive, but that is simply false.
Actually, Andrew, I agree with you -- at least to the extent that I think all drugs should be available for purchase at your local drug store, and that there should be no penalties for personal consumption per-se. Until 1914 that pretty much was the situation, though you couldn't smoke opium in an opium den. And yet our society wasn't drug-ridden. Part of our problem is that by making drugs illicit, kids especially are intrigued.
On the other hand, the idea that our drug laws are a "Wall Street" conspiracy is a bit -- in fact more than a bit -- over the top. I think a large part of the problem is that "lawmakers" feel they need to make laws in order to appear busy and get reelected.
-
Because they're black?
Please.
-
... I think all drugs should be available for purchase at your local drug store, and that there should be no penalties for personal consumption per-se...
Amen to that.
Decriminalize it and you'd take related crime out of it, together with drug lords and their smuggler and dealer armies.
-
Gulag's original point is, I think, best expressed in this video (http://www.onionstudios.com/videos/onion-explains-the-totalitarian-state-of-north-korea-3081), whose trenchant criticism of current American society is perhaps uniquely perceptive. It begins with a rather silly attempt at humour at the expense of the only true democracy in the Far East; its insightful dissection of consumerism begins a few minutes in. Nobody who has not seen it can possibly understand the all-encompassing nature of the totalitarian state in which Americans live.
God only knows what they'd make of England.
Jeremy
-
German photographer Jacobia Dahm has showed us visual narratives of upstate New York prison visits by prisoners' families from NYC here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2892048/Seeing-new-year-prison-bus-Moving-photos-families-prisoners-traveling-hundreds-miles-visit-just-hours.html
Chris Hedges speaks out against prison system's econimic incentive, and how it has produced great profit for some.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/americas_slave_empire_20150621,
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_prison_state_of_america_20141228.
Finally let me quote:
"The question of how far people are genuinely at liberty to shape their own fate is not just a question of the resources at their disposal. To the extent that we feel embedded in a pattern of historical destiny in which we have no major role to play, our choices are narrowed, even for the richest, to the career-options we believe are endemic to our age—the freedom of a restaurant patron. The reason we sometimes feel the Greeks were freer than ourselves, even though incredibly poor by modern standards, is because they do not seem to have been bound by this kind of historical emplotment. “Taking its course” is the answer of someone enslaved by more than poverty."
— Joshua Foa Dienstag, Pessimism: Philosophy, Ethic, Spirit, 2006
-
But I thought I made it clear, Russ, it's not a conspiracy at all. It's just a bunch of people acting in their own best interests.
People with money are just in a better position to act effectively. To the detriment of the poor. This is always true, but moreso in America in recent years, for a variety of reasons.
This has consequences, one of which appears to be tons of poor people in jail.
Black folks, being disproportionately poor, are disproportionately jailed. That's a side issue, though.
-
I'm predicting that Obama will pardon huge numbers of federal prisoners incarcerated for "minor" drug offenses as one of his parting directives (after the November, 2017 presidential election).
While there are no laws against drinking as there are against drugs, many people have been imprisoned for crimes committed under the influence of alcohol.
-
These crimes committed while drinking include rape, murder, assault as well the expected vehicular homicide. I once read that the statistic might be more than half of these crimes under alcohol. Drug use just adds to these figures. Maybe that's why we have such a high incarceration rate. Because of the heavy use of drugs and alcohol in America.
-
We have a higher percentage of our people in prison than practically any other nation.
Not high enough if you ask me.
-
But I thought I made it clear, Russ, it's not a conspiracy at all. It's just a bunch of people acting in their own best interests.
People with money are just in a better position to act effectively. To the detriment of the poor. This is always true, but moreso in America in recent years, for a variety of reasons.
This has consequences, one of which appears to be tons of poor people in jail.
Black folks, being disproportionately poor, are disproportionately jailed. That's a side issue, though.
So in your mind, Andrew, when people with money act effectively it's to the detriment of the poor? Maybe you could explain what you see as the connection so I can understand what you're saying. On the face of it it sounds like a Marxian zero-sum argument, but based on the general level of your posts I have a hard time believing you actually believe something that stupid.
There are only three ways to make a lot of money. You can inherit it, but that's not "making" it, and often those who inherit fortunes are no more capable of handing the result than are million dollar lottery winners. You can establish political connections that will let you charge for your influence, and we have a classic example of that before us at the moment. Or, you can produce something people want enough to pay for it.
Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs are classic examples of the third way. The interesting thing about tbat third way to make bags of money is that it invariably benefits everybody: you, the people marketing your product, and the people buying your product. Ford, Gates, and Jobs have provided more employment for people than anyone else I can think of at the moment, and I'd be willing to bet you're reading this on a product from a company founded either by Gates or by Jobs, and perhaps even driving a Ford. If this seems a mystery, I'd recommend a careful read of Adam Smith.
One thing that puts poor people in jail is indiscriminate government largess. If you're a young dude, black or white, who doesn't have to work because you're getting a check and food stamps from the government, what do you do? You hang out on street corners and look for some excitement, and it's a pretty fair bet the excitement eventually is going to land you in jail. As far as black folks being disproportionately jailed is concerned, the fact is that black folks are committing a disproportionate percentage of crimes.
I'm not going to defend the way we jail people. A huge percentage of people in jail are there for drug offenses, which is absurd. It's also a result of more bureaucracy -- a government "drug war" business that's not going away. But a lot of our prisoners are there because they're dangerous and need to be removed from society. England (Jeremy take note) used to have two ways to remove dangerous people from society. They either sent them to Australia or executed them. We can't send our criminals to Australia, and we've reached a point in our wussiness where execution practically is out of the question. Result: jails full of people.
-
Trickle down economics is as discredited as Marxism. It turns out to be more complicated than either. Neither an unfettered market not a planned economy works all that well. A certain, and I suspect variable, amount of government intervention is a good idea.
Increasingly, the wealthy are not serious contributors, their wealth is generated by financial engineering, and that is as near as I can tell an inevitable result of a large and insufficiently regulated economy. An economy of any size needs a construct like money to operate itself, which is basically why Marxism doesn't work at scale. Once you have money, people are motivated to accumulate as much as possible of it with as little effort as possible, obviously. At scale, you also need investment banking in some form. Absent sufficient government control, people in positions of control will invent financial engineering to extract money from the investment banking system. While they certainly won't object if their methods benefit everyone, they probably won't mind much if the methods don't.
The days when wealth was generated by the creation of new industries and so on, to the benefit of all, seen to be on a downslope. Our newest billionaires are hedge funds guys and dot com guys (who are in turn basically advertising guys). Maybe I'm missing something but I'm not really seeing Henry Ford anywhere in there.
We are in agreement that poor government policies are problematic!
-
It's either more prisons or more abortion clinics. Take your pick.
-
We can't send our criminals to Australia
a lot of countries will gladly accept inmates for a small amount of money, less than a cost to keep in jail for a year...
-
a lot of countries will gladly accept inmates for a small amount of money, less than a cost to keep in jail for a year...
Brilliant idea! We outsource every other industry, why not prisons?
-
For starters, Andrew, "trickle down economics" is a meaningless cliché cooked up by Socialists who won't admit they're Socialists, and there's nothing "complicated" about it. In one case you have the people collectively, a group Adam Smith called "the invisible hand," making economic decisions. On the other you have politicians, elected or not elected making economic decisions. We can see a current example of what happens when you move away from what you call "trickle down economics" by looking at Venezuela. That's government (non trickle down) economics in action.
We no longer know how unfettered markets work, we haven't had any unfettered markets since FDR, so nobody can speak from experience about how unfettered markets work. We do have some historical examples of unfettered markets from before FDR, and they're what gave the UK enough prosperity and strength to fight WW I, and let the United States and the UK fight WW II. At the moment, because we've lost our unfettered markets, there's some doubt about whether or not we have the financial strength to fight WW III. Capitalism has its problems, but to misquote Churchill: "Capitalism is the worst economic system possible, except for all the others."
Yes, a lot of people are making big money on the FED's financial engineering, but that's exactly what happens when the government gets its hands on an economy. Ours is a long way from an unregulated economy. It's an economy being regulated to death.
And I agree that the days when wealth was generated by the creation of new industries is on a downslope, but the reason it's on a downslope is that our economy is being destroyed by government over-management. A small but classic example is the way UBER has been fought by government. You're going to tell me that it's actually the taxi companies doing that, but they're doing it through government. Those are the people doing financial engineering, and they're doing it through politics -- buying financial engineering from government.
I'm glad we're in agreement that poor government policies are problematic, but the point is that current government policies are problematic. They're also destructive.
-
We shipped our Capitalism to China and other East Asian countries to avoid industry's polluting effects on America while profiting off their cheap labor.
Want to see what unfettered markets would do to our world?
Just note the recent huge explosion that spewed cyanide and killed thousands of fish in a coastal town in China. That's a crime against the world in my book. Criminal minds span all socioeconomic classes and nations. The clever ones that are wealthy can hide it and beat the wrap in so many ways. What distinguishes the ones at top when they finally get caught is that their prison stay has better views.
We're using America's economy and government oversight and regulations to create a pristine environment where rich people can build sprawling gated communities in remote beautiful areas of America making them impossible to afford for the rest of the 99%'er population. Get rid of the trailer dwellers living off the grid. If it weren't for Native American reservations the rich would have it all.
Location, location, location! Homeless in paradise is the only solution for the those at the bottom of the economic scale who have no chance for a decent life. If they can avoid getting beaten by cops or imprisoned for vagrancy, they just might make it.
-
With respect, Russ, nobody has ever seen an unfettered market of any size greater than chaps trading a few baskets for a few arrowheads.
What people call "unfettered markets" are really "markets which leave unregulated the things I would prefer to be unregulated, while regulating the things I think ought to be regulated".
And I think I am going to bow out of this discussion now. Gentlemen know that men can be friends without agreeing on every point, and when to move on to other topics, I think. And, while I am certainly no gentleman, I have met a couple here and there, and I took a few notes.
-
Sounds like a good plan.
-
... Gentlemen know that men can be friends without agreeing on every point...
Amen, brother!
-
You might want to watch this video:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3208040/Black-mom-viral-star-rant-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-rallying-death-thugs-criminals-instead-black-black-crime.html
-
"Paranoia,
(the destroyahh!)"
Paranoia, pessimism, cynicism...and confirmation bias.
-
You should be asking those other nations how they manage corruption and petty crime.
Also can we trust how they collect statistics on how many people are murdered in their country? Maybe the US has more technology and sophisticated ways of finding the bad guy and collecting this data which brings our numbers up. Maybe we're more efficient in this way.
Just because one doesn't see crime, doesn't mean it's not happening and that applies to all nations.
It is interesting to compare Scandinavia to the US. We share a common popular culture, a common religious background, and a significant number of US citizens can trace their origins back to scandinavians.
According to this source, the US have 756 people in jail per 100.000. Norway and Denmark have 94/87. That is about 8.4x:
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengsel#Befolkningsstatistikk
In Norway, about 0.71 people were killed (in 2006) per 100.000, while in the US the corresponding number was 5,62. That is 7.9x. The link says that comparing figures between countries is error-prone, but that Norway seems to have one of the lowest rates in the world.
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drap
I believe that having big cities is a factor. The US have some really big cities, and those tends to have more crime than rural parts. If Scandinavia had many million+ cities, we would probably have more crime as well. But this is hardly sufficient or even the largest factor.
Having access to guns is an obvious possibility, but while the US is #1 on the list of civilian firearms (88.8 per 100), Norway is #11 (31.6 per 100). That is 0.36x
http://www.gunpolicy.org
I do not think that Scandinavia lags behind the US when it comes to the general "level of law", the organization of our state, public corruption, or anything of that nature that scales with size. Being 5 million people naturally means that the absolute levels of budgets and number of employees in e.g. the police will be lower than in a 250 million people nation.
While the image of "the self-made man" seems to be important to many US citizens, social mobility is actually lower in the US than in many other western countries. This means that if your parents are poor, chances are that you yourself will be poor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
I spoke to a retired social worker the last time I was in the states. He was quite convincing that the changes in the 50s/60s, where the middle class moved out of the cities into suburbs (where a car was needed), leaving the central parts to "the remainders" was problematic. When people of different social status*) are mixed, they seem to be better equippet to pressure politicians into prioritizing a neighbourhood. Those who have issues may get help, or they may limit their excesses. Kids will have a wide range of role models. In short, dividing the population into those who could afford a car (and a new home) and those who could not carried a number of problems to society.
I think that a significant obstacle for a sensible discussion on this topic is that it is nearly as politically loaded as climate change. Are people in jail because (only) they are bad people? Do we have jails only to make life miserable to those bad people (and scare them or their friends into becoming good people)? Do we have laws because we want them to be followed, or because we think they make society better? Are the laws shaped to make life easier for some, and harder for others? Are the police and law system as eager to investigate and jail white people wearing suits as other classes of society? Do we punish police officers for misusing the trust that society shows them? If what you are doing today does not seem to work, will doubling up on it make things any better?
-h
*)Not only salary levels, but the degree of alcohol problems, psychological problems, language abilities etc
-
Maybe I should stay out of this but here it goes.
As an elementary school teacher, I have read about a very progressive whole child approach to education in I believe Finland. It seems to work. Scandinavia has an incredibly high literacy rate. Meanwhile here in the states we give ridiculous standardized tests to kids that are in 3rd grade. I personally graduated from a private school because the one size fits all approach didn't work with me. I now stick with public education because it is patriotic and the backbone of democracy. I'd like to think my classroom is different. The county I live in (Mariposa, CA) has never had an educational bond pass - sad.
Now you respond and call me a socialist / commie ;D
-
..As an elementary school teacher, I have read about a very progressive whole child approach to education in I believe Finland. It seems to work. Scandinavia has an incredibly high literacy rate...
I believe that education in Finland is quite different from other Scandinavian countries.
They do well on the PISA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PISA_2012, international testing of 15 year olds), other Scandinavian countries do not score as well.
Of course, the debate is if these tests are relevant, if such testing can ever measure the "goodness" of an education system, and if having more "hard" classes is the answer. What is the moral and economical consequence of failing to give a future extremist a proper education, vs helping the majority to excel in maths?
Meanwhile, in my own country, the most heated debate in school politics is if the religious classes should be called "religion, life stance and ethics" or "christianity, religion, life stance and ethics". Supporters of the latter won. Sigh. Next, we will have "geometry and maths", "running and gym" and "pizza and home economics". We seriously need laws that make a clear separation of church and state.
-h
-
Now you respond and call me a socialist / commie ;D
litmus test - do you think that your pay raise shall be more than parents of the kids you teach have ? or that somehow your community owes you a defined benefits plan vs defined contribution plan... if so then you are certainly the one.
-
Nobody who has not seen it can possibly understand the all-encompassing nature of the totalitarian state in which Americans live.
It always bemuses me when people talk about living in a 'totalitarian society'. Anyone who has travelled to any length outside NA and Western Europe will realise what freedoms we actually have - I am not saying it is perfect in Europe or US and there is an awful lot to improve, but saying there is stuff to improve is a world away from saying we live in a totalitarian society. I would even go do far as saying it is an insult to those who are.
-
litmus test - do you think that your pay raise shall be more than parents of the kids you teach have ?
How does that qualify you as being socialist/commie?
I was gobsmacked when one American in all seriousness said that Canada is a Marxist state and Europe is definitely communist - all based on the fact we dare to have socialised healthcare. I suppose it is not surprising when even left wing politics in US is still somewhat to the right in European terms.
-
Anyone who has travelled
as we say - do not mix tourism and emigration/immigration :D ...
-
How does that qualify you as being socialist/commie?
me - no, I work in a purely capitalist enterprise - nothing granted/no trade unions/you don't make your targets you are out... but you did not answer the question :D
PS: I was born in USSR and spent 50% of my life there, while it was still USSR, so I can really compare things not as a tourist ;)
-
me - no, I work in a purely capitalist enterprise - nothing granted/no trade unions/you don't make your targets you are out... but you did not answer the question :D
PS: I was born in USSR and spent 50% of my life there, while it was still USSR, so I can really compare things not as a tourist ;)
When I said 'you' I meant it in terms of the general that than yourself in particular.
I am not the one your original question was aimed at but was wondering about the thinking behind your definition of socialist/commie:
- a teacher wanting to be paid more than the parents of their pupils
- someone wanting defined benefits versus defined contribution pension
-
It always bemuses me when people talk about living in a 'totalitarian society'. Anyone who has travelled to any length outside NA and Western Europe will realise what freedoms we actually have - I am not saying it is perfect in Europe or US and there is an awful lot to improve, but saying there is stuff to improve is a world away from saying we live in a totalitarian society. I would even go do far as saying it is an insult to those who are.
Either you didn't bother to follow the link in my message or you have no sense of irony at all. That lack is sometimes said to be an American failing, but the Onion is an American site. You've made yourself look either lazy or silly.
Jeremy
-
- a teacher wanting to be paid more than the parents of their pupils
- someone wanting defined benefits versus defined contribution pension
that's when you are trying to avoid market realities... and teachers unions (their members) do - their output does not correspond with our input... that also goes towards any municipal/state/federal employees too...
-
that's when you are trying to avoid market realities... and teachers unions (their members) do - their output does not correspond with our input... that also goes towards any municipal/state/federal employees too...
Odd. I thought avoiding market realities was the province of the banks. the archetypal capitalist tool ;D
But I always though socialism was about who owns means of production not who wants to go silly with wage claims.
-
Either you didn't bother to follow the link in my message or you have no sense of irony at all. That lack is sometimes said to be an American failing, but the Onion is an American site. You've made yourself look either lazy or silly.
Jeremy
Or perhaps I do actually understand irony and was extending it with a personal anecdote.
Maybe I should have started my post with 'How witty you are :P'
-
I live in Sydney. We don't have gangs, guns or a a lack of a security net. Perhaps that's why Australian cities are on the top of the most liveable cities in the world (http://www.traveller.com.au/tokyo-named-worlds-most-liveable-city-in-monocle-2015-quality-of-life-survey-gi3e4d).
What worries me is that recent conservative governments seem to be copying US politics, why copy a failed system?
Cheers,
-
I live in Sydney. We don't have gangs, guns......
Major points taken, but then there's this regarding gangs:
"Armed robberies also occur, and while firearms are sometimes used, the more common weapon utilized is a knife or other cutting implement, which also accounts for 59 percent of murders throughout NSW. Australia has extremely restrictive firearms legislation, which makes the purchase, possession, licensing, and storage of firearms very difficult when compared to U.S. jurisdictions. Most gun-related incidents involved drive-by and targeted shootings, stemming from outlaw motorcycle gang turf wars and drug-related disputes with organized crime gangs. In general, gun-related violence in Sydney has remained stable over 2014 and is remarkably low when compared to major U.S. cities."
Source: https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=17811
-
The NRA has targeted Australia because of it's highly successful gun restrictions. There has not been a mass shooting since the Howard conservative government introduced new laws after the Port Arthur massacre (https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Port+Authur+Massicre).
American gangs see Australia as a soft target, luckily we seem to be resisting the attack. Any gang violence seems to be between a couple of American based gangs.
Living in one of the most liveable cities in the world is fantastic. I have great superannuation, I don't worry about getting sick or attacked. One of the keystones is our government has put in measures to protect us.
Cheers,
-
Or perhaps I do actually understand irony and was extending it with a personal anecdote.
I ruled out that explanation, given that there was no "personal anecdote" in your post. I think I'll stick to my original possibilities.
Jeremy
-
You should be asking those other nations how they manage corruption
To start with, all other developped nations prevent corruption by making illegal the funding of political parties by private entities (lobbies, companies,...)?
Pretty much everything else is the result of this single breach. You've got to laugh at how naive the belief in the relevance of freedom of speech/freedom of initiative as a proof of the democratic nature of the US is. ;)
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I ruled out that explanation, given that there was no "personal anecdote" in your post. I think I'll stick to my original possibilities.
Jeremy
You mean the bit where I said (without reference to a television program or magazine article)
I was gobsmacked when one American in all seriousness said that Canada is a Marxist state and Europe is definitely communist
-
I think that some people forget that most (western) economies are actually a mix between capitalism and centrally planned economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
When one realize that the US and e.g. Scandinavia are different in degree, not in nature (in this respect), utterances such as "socialist hell Sweden" would perhaps be moderated. My understanding of recent US history is that pure capitalism has not been the goal or politics of a number of notable presidents. Was not FDR as good a social-democrat as any Swede?
How much is the US state subsidizing cotton or sugar farmers with?
-h
-
To start with, all other developped nations prevent corruption by making illegal the funding of political parties by private entities (lobbies, companies,...)?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/17/945983/-Socialist-Sweden-Beats-Capitalist-USA#
Sweden is the world’s second most competitive country, the World Economic Forum said in its annual ranking, hailing the Scandinavian country for its transparent institutions, efficient financial markets and the world’s strongest technological adoption.
Switzerland topped the overall ranking in The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. Sweden overtook the US and Singapore this year to be placed 2nd overall.
Sweden benefits from the world’s most transparent and efficient public institutions, with very low levels of corruption and undue influence and a government that is considered to be one of the most efficient in the world, the report stated.
Sweden (and Europe) do have significant problems with integrating immigrants (perhaps we could learn a thing or two from the US?).
-h
-
I don't think Europe have any more problems with immigrants than America - the difference is that the US is big enough that immigrants can easily be separated from people who don't like them. Though I am not sure what 'lessons' you think Europe can learn from US.
Taking Britain as an example, we go through cycles of handwringing agonies about how we are a divided society and (according to some) deeply racist - and overlaying this is the remnants of a post-colonial guilt that was very strong in the 1970s and 1980s. And yet I speak to people from other European countries, both European descent who have seen the racial problems in their own countries and non-European immigrants who have come from elsewhere in the EU and they say Britain is remarkably tolerant. One significant difference is that we are more willing to talk about it. I don't know if this is the same as other see us but it seems to me that sometimes you can be too close to the problem such that it looks worse than it really is.
I think Sweden (in fact any of the Scandinavian countries) is unusual in the population being relatively small. It is well known that as societies get larger, social structures tend to break down and I believe this happens at national level as well. In smaller societies it is more likely that the population will have a coherence in thinking that makes it easier to engender a national identity; they will tend towards an understanding and an appreciation of the 'common good' and more likely to appreciate the spirit of the laws as much as the letter of the laws. In turn this will tend towards greater tolerance. Larger populations start to fragment and lose that sense of cohesion - I think that is what you are seeing in Britain because of population density and US by its sheer size geographically as well as population. As a result you could introduce basically the same laws and systems and the way they are enacted can differ widely. There will always be those trying to take advantage in one way or another (at the top and bottom of the social scales) but the attitude of the general population will differ widely and set their own 'unwritten' limits for most people.
-
I don't think Europe have any more problems with immigrants than America - the difference is that the US is big enough that immigrants can easily be separated from people who don't like them. Though I am not sure what 'lessons' you think Europe can learn from US.
Northern European countries generally seems to have a growing population of non-western immigrants where a significant percentage fail to get a job, fail to learn the language and (in a few cases) show open hostility against the nation that has allowed them (or their parents) entry. The problem seems to be widespread acknowledged, but the cause (and possible solution) is of course politically divided between "left" and "right".
My impression is that the large, sustained flow of immigrants into the US has forced the nation into a different pattern. But perhaps my understanding of the US is as flawed as many americans understanding of Scandinavia.
I think Sweden (in fact any of the Scandinavian countries) is unusual in the population being relatively small. It is well known that as societies get larger, social structures tend to break down and I believe this happens at national level as well.
Agreed.
In smaller societies it is more likely that the population will have a coherence in thinking that makes it easier to engender a national identity; they will tend towards an understanding and an appreciation of the 'common good' and more likely to appreciate the spirit of the laws as much as the letter of the laws. In turn this will tend towards greater tolerance.
More than being just "small" (in terms of headcount), Norway have historically been remarkeably homogenous. I.e. people have had similar religion, similar education, they even married people from "the neighbor town". This leads to some degree of transparency, but also to fear of the unknown (the opposite of tolerance).
Some speculate that when your neighbours know you (and your family), having a generous public social welfare system works because of social pressure (anyone playing the system would face social consequences). When people start moving into large cities and culture becomes more fragmented, keeping the old system may be challenging.
-h
-
I don't think Europe have any more problems with immigrants than America - the difference is that the US is big enough that immigrants can easily be separated from people who don't like them.
I wonder what this is in reference to? Immigrants to the US and to Europe seem to keep to themselves for a time (ghettoes?) and ultimately assimilate. Irish, Germans, Italians, Puerto Ricans, etc....all took some time to in America to break out of their isolation. There was ample prejudice against them all.
I think objective analysis would show that generations of immigrants have had a comparatively easy time assimilating into the fabric of the US. Are there no Muslim enclaves in France? Yes, just as there are Mexican enclaves in California and Arizona. I visited one last week and took the picture attached here. There are economic barriers around Guadalupe, but no fences. The Mexican-Americans of Guadalupe have significant, proven economic opportunity, in this state and across America. Prejudice remains, but time is not on its side.
-
Nice shot, Jeff.
To inject a bit more photography into the thread, a classic Americana:
-
... Now you respond and call me a socialist / commie ;D
When I left my commies, I never expected to encounter so many of them here ;)
-
But I always though socialism was about who owns means of production not who wants to go silly with wage claims.
well, things evolve... nowadays you do not need to treat this "ownership" quite literally... the real socialism is about having certain group of people who organize to take certain control for personal gain using non market methods... be that party membership or specifics of teachers employment here or a class of CEOs, etc, etc.
-
It is interesting to compare Scandinavia to the US. We share a common popular culture, a common religious background, and a significant number of US citizens can trace their origins back to scandinavians.
According to this source, the US have 756 people in jail per 100.000. Norway and Denmark have 94/87. That is about 8.4x:
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengsel#Befolkningsstatistikk
In Norway, about 0.71 people were killed (in 2006) per 100.000, while in the US the corresponding number was 5,62. That is 7.9x. The link says that comparing figures between countries is error-prone, but that Norway seems to have one of the lowest rates in the world.
https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drap
...
Interesting indeed.
However, it is even more interesting to compare states in the U.S. that do share more with Norway than the U.S. as a whole. Minnesota, for instance, that has a large Scandinavian population, or states that are similar in size or have similarly homogenous and/or non-urban population. The difference is not 8x any more, but between 2x and 3x:
-
... But I always though socialism was about who owns means of production...
It is also a state of mind. One where people expect the government to solve most of their problems.
-
well, things evolve... nowadays you do not need to treat this "ownership" quite literally... the real socialism is about having certain group of people who organize to take certain control for personal gain using non market methods... be that party membership or specifics of teachers employment here or a class of CEOs, etc, etc.
That's a new one on me.
Any references to that? It would be interesting to find out more.
-
It is also a state of mind. One where people expect the government to solve most of their problems.
The difference between socialised welfare and socialism. A wonderful conflation of two different terms favoured by Fox News and the big healthcare providers to play on the innate American distrust (almost fear) of anything that can be labelled with a tag indicative of communism and the nasty boogeyman that lives in the evil land of R-U-S-S-I-A (say it quietly lest it actually exists and they hear you calling them).
Large swathes of Americans look on it as tantamount to selling out, in Europe we look on it as supporting the most vulnerable because that is what societies do.
One where people expect the government to solve most of their problems.
Personally I look on many of those as lazy **** who should apply a dose of common sense, and get off their backsides.
-
... population density and US by its sheer size geographically as well as population. As a result you could introduce basically the same laws and systems and the way they are enacted can differ widely...
For instance, California vs. Texas:
P.S. The Texas part is a true story, btw
-
For instance, California vs. Texas:
P.S. The Texas part is a true story, btw
What can we draw from this?
Anomaly: And yet America insists on housing criminals at the taxpayer's expense. Europe try and rehabilitate them which helps reduce the burden on the state.
Or :
California = Europe, Texas = good ol' US of A
Coyote = disadvantaged person doing what they can to feed themselves :-\
-
For instance, California vs. Texas:
P.S. The Texas part is a true story, btw
ROTFL! Thanks, Slobodan. That about sums it up. And it keeps getting worse.
-
... which helps reduce the burden on the state...
California = Europe...
You missed the part that California is broke.
-
I know its broke and there are so many possible reasons depending on your political preference...
-
... there are so many possible reasons...
Not really... just two: either too little revenue or too much expenses. I think the anecdote above explains which one. A lot of businesses (and people) are already moving from CA to TX.
-
A cautionary tale for all the socialists out there (and here):
Seattle CEO Who Set Firm's Minimum Wage to $70G Says He Has Hit Hard Times (http://Seattle CEO Who Set Firm's Minimum Wage to $70G Says He Has Hit Hard Times)
Which very much reminds me of the following anecdote (pilfered from the Internet):
An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little ...
The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.
-
Not really... just two: either too little revenue or too much expenses. I think the anecdote above explains which one. A lot of businesses (and people) are already moving from CA to TX.
Unfortunately they've been moving to Colorado too, Slobodan, we call it "Californicating Colorado."
I know its broke and there are so many possible reasons. . .
Actually there's just one reason: It's called Socialism. You'd think that by now people would have learned what Socialism does to any economy, but you'd be wrong.
-
Not really... just two: either too little revenue or too much expenses. I think the anecdote above explains which one. A lot of businesses (and people) are already moving from CA to TX.
So nothing to do with the generous tax breaks?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-samuels/why-california-is-broke-a_b_846143.html
So yes, they are spending more than is coming into the coffers but that also depends on how far you fill the coffers. As ever your political viewpoint will govern how you see the priorities.
-
A cautionary tale for all the socialists out there (and here):
Seattle CEO Who Set Firm's Minimum Wage to $70G Says He Has Hit Hard Times (http://Seattle CEO Who Set Firm's Minimum Wage to $70G Says He Has Hit Hard Times)
Which very much reminds me of the following anecdote (pilfered from the Internet):
Oh, boy. Poor business management is now a definition of socialism?
So what are your ideas about people wanting to help others as a definition of socialism? It brings to mind Rockerfeller whose foundation aims to "Improve the well-being of humanity around the world". And Bill Gates and a heap of other benefactors.
By the way, a nice little anecdote which is more about due recognition than anything to do with socialism, but to base an economic theory on a fabricated story is specious to say the least.
-
Actually there's just one reason: It's called Socialism. You'd think that by now people would have learned what Socialism does to any economy, but you'd be wrong.
Application of socialism without any sense of reality has failed for precisely the same reason that application of capitalism without any sense of reality has failed. By the latter I mean all this 'light touch regulation' of banks etc. And that reason is human nature - no matter what the economic or political system invoked, someone will always twist it to their own advantage often with the view of **** the rest of you. You always need rules in place to stop that happening.
So where do you draw the line in your definition of socialism?
Federal or State funding for schools? The army? CIA? Roads? Social security (I hope to god you never need it)? Polio vaccination?
And of course business subsidies - are they 'socialist'?
-
Speaking from an outsider's perspective, politics and political debate in the US seems a very peculiar business indeed. The vocabulary seems to move about a lot, and truth is taken as a function of who makes the loudest, most uncompromising assertions.
For the record: "socialism" means the public ownership of the means of production - nothing more, and nothing less.
OK - carry on...
-
Anomaly: And yet America insists on housing criminals at the taxpayer's expense. Europe try and rehabilitate them which helps reduce the burden on the state.
Goodness gracious, spidermike! You mean to tell me that the Americans don't even TRY to rehabilitate criminals! HORRIBLE! I'm surprised anyone wants to live there (here).
-
For the record: "socialism" means the public ownership of the means of production - nothing more, and nothing less.
Sure, Ian, just like "fairy" means a magical figure - nothing more and nothing less.
-
Goodness gracious, spidermike! You mean to tell me that the Americans don't even TRY to rehabilitate criminals! HORRIBLE! I'm surprised anyone wants to live there (here).
I just thought I would indulge in generalisation and extrapolations that seem to abound in the definition of 'socialism' ;D
-
Oh, boy...
...a definition of socialism...
...to base an economic theory on a fabricated story is specious to say the least.
Mike,
I understand you might think my postings are "specious" or that I have no clue what socialism is. After all, there are tons of googling "experts" and armchair philosophers out there these days.
For the sake of establishing my credibility, here is what I know about socialism: I was born, raised and educated in one. I also happened to be a trained economist. Trained at both a socialist university and at currently #1 business school in the (western) world. I read Das Kapital front to back, all three tomes. and passed an exam on it (with an A). I also taught economics at two universities, a western European one, and here in the States. From a practical business perspective, I was a senior manager in financial roles for four major US multinationals. I spent eight years working in the ground zero of socialism (and on the bright path to communism) - Russia.
So, do I think I know a thing or two about socialism? You bet. Can I smell a socialist way of thinking from a mile away? You bet. Surely much better than any armchair socialist (not that I suggest you are one).
-
Slobodan, socialism is on a continuum. I really understand your hate of the past Eastern European socialism.
In Australia we have a mix of socialised and private medicine. There is a Medicare levy of around 1.5% tax. That means you can be treated in a Public Hospital for free. When I was a university student I had a sebaceous cyst on my face. It took around 18 moths to be removed but it was free. Lately I had a basal cell carcinoma removed from my face. I was operated on in a Private Hospital and my private insurance paid for most of it. The pathologists decided that the surgeon may not have gotten all of it. Two days later I was operated in a Public Hospital by the same surgeon for free.
Medicare also provides free doctor's visits if your doctor sees you as being "deserving". In any case the government gives a rebate on you doctor's visit.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a program of the Australian Government that provides subsidised prescription drugs to residents of Australia. The PBS ensures that Australian residents have affordable and reliable access to a wide range of necessary medicines. It has been under increasing attacks from US pharmaceutical companies.
The "dole (http://www.australia.gov.au/information-and-services/benefits-and-payments/job-seekers)" in Australia is great, it is socialist but hey, it helps those people that can't help themselves.
Not all socialism is bad. One of the United States' problems is the lack of a safety net for people who are having problems. That's when problems occur.
Cheers,
P.S. I just walked past Millers Point in Sydney. There is a fight on, the public housing there is probably worth at least Au$1,000,000 a semi detached house due to recent developments.
-
...One of the United States' problems is the lack of a safety net for people who are having problems. That's when problems occur...
Perhaps not as generous as elsewhere, but there is a safety net here. There is Medicare (for old) and Medicaid (for poor). There are food stamps, and currently hitting record high, about 48 million people. And of course, there is free medicine as well, in emergency rooms, for illegals and uninsured. There are generous unemployment benefits too, up to two years.
-
So, do I think I know a thing or two about socialism? You bet. Can I smell a socialist way of thinking from a mile away? You bet. Surely much better than any armchair socialist (not that I suggest you are one).
Given that we all (nations as well as individuals) seems to be on a continuum between the extremes of "no state" and "all state", and certain states apparently confuse economy academics by being social democratic and particularly efficient at the same time...
Does this not generate any curiosity at all? Perhaps there are other ways of doing things that could improve your state?
-h
-
Absolutely! And if you read Adam Smith you'll find out what they are.
-
Interesting indeed.
However, it is even more interesting to compare states in the U.S. that do share more with Norway than the U.S. as a whole. Minnesota, for instance, that has a large Scandinavian population, or states that are similar in size or have similarly homogenous and/or non-urban population. The difference is not 8x any more, but between 2x and 3x:
this begs the question: did we ship all of our violent guys on a boat to you, or did you do something to them to make them 2-3x as violent? :-)
My government is trying to generally arm police offisers. I think that is a bad idea.
-h
-
Absolutely! And if you read Adam Smith you'll find out what they are.
Is Adam Smith the reason why states like Sweden come out better than the US in some respects?
-h
-
this begs the question: did we ship all of our violent guys on a boat to you...
But of course. You did ship them on a boat... Viking boat ;)
-
Perhaps not as generous as elsewhere, but there is a safety net here. There is Medicare (for old) and Medicaid (for poor). There are food stamps, and currently hitting record high, about 48 million people. And of course, there is free medicine as well, in emergency rooms, for illegals and uninsured. There are generous unemployment benefits too, up to two years.
Sounds pretty socialist to me.
Cheers,
-
If you can actually read both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, you can find that Karl Marx quoted Adam Smith a lot in his works. For example, Marx's definition of capital is directly copied from Smith's: "A certain quantity of labour stocked and stored up to be employed (storef up labour)."
Marx in Das Kapital borrows Adam Smith's conclusion that as long as we also allow some people to control productive capital, and, again, leave others with nothing to sell but their brains and bodies, the results will be in very many ways barely distinguishable from slavery.
Noam Chomsky talks about Adam Smith recently, "The comment that you quoted, “crony capitalism,” and so on – what’s capitalism supposed to be? Yeah, it’s crony capitalism. That’s capitalism, you do things for your friends, your associates, they do things for you, you try to influence the political system, obviously. You can read about this in Adam Smith. If people read Adam Smith instead of just worshipping him, they could learn a lot about how economies work. So, for example, he’s concerned mostly with England, and he pointed out that in England, and I’m virtually quoting, he said the merchants and manufacturers are the principal architects of government policy and they make sure their own interests are well cared for, however grievous the effects on others, including the people of England.
Yes, it’s their business. What else should they do? It’s like when people talk about greedy capitalists, that’s redundant. You have to be a greedy capitalist or you’re out of business. In fact, it’s a legal requirement that you be a greedy capitalist and that you don’t pay attention to what happens to anyone else. You know, it’s not just Ayn Rand, that’s the law. So, these complaints don’t make any sense."
-
Mike,
I understand you might think my postings are "specious" or that I have no clue what socialism is. After all, there are tons of googling "experts" and armchair philosophers out there these days.
For the sake of establishing my credibility, here is what I know about socialism: I was born, raised and educated in one. I also happened to be a trained economist. Trained at both a socialist university and at currently #1 business school in the (western) world. I read Das Kapital front to back, all three tomes. and passed an exam on it (with an A). I also taught economics at two universities, a western European one, and here in the States. From a practical business perspective, I was a senior manager in financial roles for four major US multinationals. I spent eight years working in the ground zero of socialism (and on the bright path to communism) - Russia.
So, do I think I know a thing or two about socialism? You bet. Can I smell a socialist way of thinking from a mile away? You bet. Surely much better than any armchair socialist (not that I suggest you are one).
I have never questioned your credentials, but being a trained economist does not mean you have an unbiased point of view. I have met several people raised in communist countries who are more aware than most of any policies that could be construed as socialist or socialism, just as I have known people with similar views on the right wing of the spectrum. I recall a few years ago a critique of the European Court of Justice looking at the impact of judges from countries until recently (at that time) out of the Soviet umbrella and it was clear that their decisions were clearly influenced by their history in that they were hyper aware of ruling against anything that could even be construed as restriction of rights even more so than judges raised in the Western European countries.
So far socialism has been defined as wanting too high a pay rise (odd really, I would have thought that was the essence of capitalism, but there you go), poor business management, altruism, apathy, and seemingly socialised care. That covers a fair bit of general human behaviour.
-
Is Adam Smith the reason why states like Sweden come out better than the US in some respects?
-h
No. States like Sweden have been protected by the United States since 1941. Don't get me wrong, H, when I was an aviation cadet there were Swedes training with me who were quite willing to fly and fight, but the economic burden has been borne by the U.S. for a long, long time. Now that we've become an almost wholly state-run society It looks to me as if we've pretty much reached the end of that rope. We pretend we're only 18 trillion in debt, but when you count the commitments for things like social security, medicare, medicaid, and, basically cradle-to-grave coverage, it's a hell of a lot more than that. I don't think we can keep it up. The current administration is doing everything it can to make us just like Europe. If that happens, we're all screwed.
-
... So far socialism has been defined as wanting too high a pay rise (odd really, I would have thought that was the essence of capitalism, but there you go), poor business management, altruism, apathy, and seemingly socialised care. That covers a fair bit of general human behaviour.
I do not think anyone here "defined" socialism by what you are quoting. Just pointing out one aspect of it, i.e., as I said, a socialist state of mind. And yes, it is (a part of) general human behavior. After all, socialism didn't fall from Mars, nor was just imposed by a few bad guys (Lenin, etc.). It was clamored by the masses at the time (and today).
As for the case of "poor business management," the point wasn't that. The point was the underlying desire to improve "fairness" and provide for a more egalitarian pay scale, reducing the gap between higher and lower paid employees. That is a pure socialist/Soviet concept, even has a word for it in both Russian and Serbian - "uravnilovka" = leveling, i.e., bringing everyone to the same level or close.
And just to be clear, I am far from endorsing extremes on the other side, like CEO salary disparity. I am for a far serious taxation of hedge fund managers, for instance, as well as for raising a minimum wage across the nation, not just in Seattle et al.
Nor I am suggesting that everything was bad in my former homeland (whose socialism was a far cry from the Soviet one anyway), nor in some "socialist" western European societies.
-
... I recall a few years ago a critique of the European Court of Justice looking at the impact of judges from countries until recently (at that time) out of the Soviet umbrella and it was clear that their decisions were clearly influenced by their history in that they were hyper aware of ruling against anything that could even be construed as restriction of rights even more so than judges raised in the Western European countries...
And why do you think that is? Because "one thing leads to another," a small restriction today, another small tomorrow, and we actually know where it ends (we've been there, done that).
-
...
The "dole (http://www.australia.gov.au/information-and-services/benefits-and-payments/job-seekers)" in Australia is great, it is socialist but hey, it helps those people that can't help themselves...
Ok, but check this out:
Australia's nanny state: A case of arrested development? (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-34048497)
And now an Australian senator has set up a parliamentary inquiry into the extent to which the country has become a "nanny state".
Senator David Leyonhjelm says Australia's once "adventurous spirit" has been paralysed by rules and regulations, and millions of dollars are being wasted on bureaucracy.
"The government is taking decisions out of the hands of adults and making decisions for them on the basis that the government knows best."
:)
-
The point was the underlying desire to improve "fairness" and provide for a more egalitarian pay scale, reducing the gap between higher and lower paid employees. That is a pure socialist/Soviet concept, even has a word for it in both Russian and Serbian - "uravnilovka" = leveling, i.e., bringing everyone to the same level or close.
So now 'fairness' in business is a Soviet concept? ;)
As far as I could tell from the interview his point was that the people on the phone talking to customers are the lifeblood of his company and he is recognising that importance in the payscales. As far as I can tell from comments on the web, other people people got hacked off not because they argued with his basic premise, but with the fact that their pay had not gone up as much (ie twice) as that of those on the phones. Now you can either say 'those people have more responsibility and deserve X times as much pay' or you can say 'those people merely have different skillsets but we recognise their larger responsibility which may mean they will have less than X times as much pay'.
The real tests will be (1) will his company survive and (2) if it does survive how many people leave for different jobs.
You see, I don't look on such concepts as an extension of socialism. I look on socialism as an enforced extension of such proposals to everyone who may or may not feel the same way. But when a society agrees that something like socialised welfare benefits the society as a whole that is not socialism but either selfishness (I may need it someday) or altruism (simply because we should).
Healthcare schemes are basically socialist if you want to put it like the way you seem to be - a group of people contributing to each others' healthcare whether they need the services or not. But just in case they do...
-
Craig Paul Roberts, the former Assistant Treasure Secretary in the Reagan Administration writes, "America is a gulag. We are ruled by a government that is devoid of all morality, all integrity, all compassion, all justice. The government of the United States stands for one thing and one thing only: Evil. You are part of the new Captive Nation."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-21/paul-craig-roberts-america-gulag
Yo, Gulag: I don't know how long you've been watching this zerohedge guy, 'Durden', but he has been so wrong, about so much, for so very, very long.
If your interested, here are a couple sooth-sayers that have been largely correct since the late 2008, early 2009 bottom.
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/
https://www.ftportfolios.com/retail/blogs/Economics/index.aspx
-
So now 'fairness' in business is a Soviet concept? ;)
You seem to like straw-man arguments. I'll leave you to it.
-
No. States like Sweden have been protected by the United States since 1941.
Sweden are officially neutral. Thus, your argument would be better if you named Norway or Denmark.
My country has been protected by the US since 1941. While I have deep gratitude to the men who took great personal risk (many of whom died) in WWII, I doubt that the protection offered by their kids and grandkids came at zero cost or was due to kindness. Rather, the US (for large periods) seems to have seen foreign policy as an investment where they hope to get nice returns.
Don't get me wrong, H, when I was an aviation cadet there were Swedes training with me who were quite willing to fly and fight, but the economic burden has been borne by the U.S. for a long, long time. Now that we've become an almost wholly state-run society It looks to me as if we've pretty much reached the end of that rope. We pretend we're only 18 trillion in debt, but when you count the commitments for things like social security, medicare, medicaid, and, basically cradle-to-grave coverage, it's a hell of a lot more than that. I don't think we can keep it up.
The US spends 2x more on health care than Sweden. Yet Swedes have better health than you guys. I am an engineer, not an economist but such apparent differences makes me want to pick the systems apart and figure out what makes them tick. Does this spark any curiosity at all, or are you guys intrinsically and forever polarized on the left vs right divide no matter what the facts may be?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/business/what-sweden-can-tell-us-about-obamacare.html?_r=0
The current administration is doing everything it can to make us just like Europe. If that happens, we're all screwed.
I hear some US people saying similar things. Perhaps they would change their views if they got to see more of the world?
-h
-
You seem to like straw-man arguments. I'll leave you to it.
That was said tongue in cheek, hence the winkie.
-
Yo, Gulag: I don't know how long you've been watching this zerohedge guy, 'Durden', but he has been so wrong, about so much, for so very, very long.
If your interested, here are a couple sooth-sayers that have been largely correct since the late 2008, early 2009 bottom.
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/
https://www.ftportfolios.com/retail/blogs/Economics/index.aspx
I read ZH for fun since I don't read any blogs for financial investment decisions. I understand many people even pay for financial newsletters. Not me. I like to form my own opinions.
-
Sweden are officially neutral. Thus, your argument would be better if you named Norway or Denmark.
Yes. And the only reason Sweden can stay officially neutral is that the United States, Britain, Canada, etc., are NOT officially neutral.