Capitalism versus Socialism

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[saltandsauce 0]

the thing about gold standards is, when a government is in debt or running a defecit. the government is in real danger of bankruptcy. what countries drowning in government debt do is print money to pay off the creditors. the value of the money goes down but the debt is paid off. if a country has a gold standard it can't print money without buying gold. hence the unpopularity of the gold standard.

pegging currencies against gold is a different matter.

countries have started running defecits since the second world war. initially it was because they sold off their gold to pay for the war. but after they realised they could devalue to pay off debts and so. some countries haven't ran in "profit" for the last 60 years.

the UK paid off the last of the second world war loan about 5 years ago. a lot of the money from privatisation went on repaying that loan.

countries with a metal (it can be silver or copper or even steel) behind their currency HAVE to have reserves to run a defecit or they must not run a defecit.

having a precious metal standard means that if your currency is backed by silver for example, you could hand your note over and get a specified amount of silver back. and everyone could do that and have their bit of silver - all the money physically exists in this metal.

having currency pegged means that you can print money and the value of your currency won't go down (unless you are the united states since gold is traded in US$) you can also peg your currency against another currency as China does against the USD the ratio will always be the same.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Whoa nelly!  If the U.S. currency was gold standard backed (I don't advocate this because it is far too late), then an international payment between countries would consist of a shipment of specie into or out of Fort Knox.  At one time, in my chequered career, I worked for a big bank that had a gold depository.  International payments consisted of moving skip loads of gold bars from one vault to another using a front-end loader.

Because gold is a limited resource, we would never have arrived at this Peter's Pretty Pass we are in now.  A gold-backed currency is redeemable for a fixed amount of specie at any bank.  If somebody wants to put gold in his mattress he has only to go to his bank and swap his paper for gold.  This is the real meaning of a "run on the bank".  Banks can never carry this much metal, as it is usually kept in a national repository controlled by the central bank (if you have one).

Shipments of specie to cover circulating currency often lag transactions by months, if not years.  The kinds of national debts that we see now would be impossible.  You can't loan gosh-whatta-place money without shipping them metal in the end.  A suitcase full of gold would never get on an aircraft because it would be too heavy.  Heavy debt, indeed.

[-Lexus- 2]

Why would you need a gold standard? Money is supposed to be a limited resource as well. It can perfectly back itself if it wasnt for people creating money.

Gold is essence just as worthless as printed paper. Its a piece of metal, so what. We gave it its value because our ancestors liked the way it looked so shiny. But you cant make gold, there is always a relatively fixed amount in circulation. 

If people just stopped printing money you could make a paper standard, and done. 

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Whoa nelly! If the U.S. currency was gold standard backed (I don't advocate this because it is far too late), then an international payment between countries would consist of a shipment of specie into or out of Fort Knox. At one time, in my chequered career, I worked for a big bank that had a gold depository. International payments consisted of moving skip loads of gold bars from one vault to another using a front-end loader.quote>

This makes no sense; if the American dollar is tied directly to gold then the dollar was "as good as gold", and therefore there would be no reason to actually hold gold in lieu of American dollars. In fact, shipping gold out of Fort Knox for the purposes of settling international accounts would be nonsensical, a stable dollar-gold equivalency required that there be a set amount of circulating cash tied to a fixed amount of gold held in reserve. It was when governments and private individuals decided that gold was actually grossly undervalued relative to the dollar that a "run on gold" resulted and the US was forced off the gold standard. When were you moving gold bars from country to country, in the late '60s?

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Because gold is a limited resource, we would never have arrived at this Peter's Pretty Pass we are in now. A gold-backed currency is redeemable for a fixed amount of specie at any bank. If somebody wants to put gold in his mattress he has only to go to his bank and swap his paper for gold. This is the real meaning of a "run on the bank". Banks can never carry this much metal, as it is usually kept in a national repository controlled by the central bank (if you have one).quote>

A gold standard usually requires fairly tight restrictions on the circulation of gold, and during the Bretton Woods years this was certainly the case. Although in theory you could always redeem your dollars for gold, in fact there were restrictions on private individuals owning any non-negligible amounts of gold. Therefore, you could hardly just go into your local bank and demand the gold, and in the years where the system was becoming increasingly shaky the US government was forced to come to agreements with foreign governments so that they would not buy gold (at undervalued prices).

A run on the bank is a shortage of liquidity, not gold.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Shipments of specie to cover circulating currency often lag transactions by months, if not years. The kinds of national debts that we see now would be impossible. You can't loan gosh-whatta-place money without shipping them metal in the end. A suitcase full of gold would never get on an aircraft because it would be too heavy. Heavy debt, indeed.quote>

I was rather under the impression that most government debt is held as government bonds or treasury bills, not in gold. Also, why can't you loan "gosh-whatta-place" (The United States?) money without shipping them metal in the end? Most loans don't require you to actually be given chunks of gold (and why would they, you're supposed to give it back). The only reason I can see that the current levels of national debt would be impossible under that system is because there would be a severe shortage of dollars in the first place.

Also, the Marshall Plan did not involve shipping over to Europe billions of dollars worth of gold. The aim of the Marshall Plan, and indeed a necessity throughout the period of Bretton Woods, was to maintain a negative balance of payments - this time targeted specifically at Europe to overcome their severe illiquidity - so that there would actually be gold-backed money circulating throughout the world and providing liquidity for international exchanges. Actually moving gold about was not the point, and was to be avoided.

Originally posted by: saltandsauc

the thing about gold standards is, when a government is in debt or running a defecit. the government is in real danger of bankruptcy. what countries drowning in government debt do is print money to pay off the creditors. the value of the money goes down but the debt is paid off. if a country has a gold standard it can't print money without buying gold. hence the unpopularity of the gold standard.quote>

There are actually several responses to a government debt that threatens national bankruptcy. The first response is to raise interest rates, which makes government bonds more attractive to counteract fears of default. That is, interest rates on government bonds are dependent on the perceived risk of default so if there is a fear of bankruptcy interest rates can be raised until people believe the possible return on investment cancels out or exceeds the risk of default. Eventually, however, interest rates become too high to be sustainable or investors simply refuse to buy bonds at any rate.

Taking out loans to pay off the current debt is a tactic that has been used before, often without much success. It results in a much higher debt load that will, hopefully, become less significant over time with austere government budgets and an increase in GDP.

Printing money is another option, but one which Eurozone countries cannot use because they do not control the monetary policy of the Euro. There the disconnect between supranational monetary policy and national fiscal policy is contributing to the current crisis and revealing, perhaps, that certain countries should not have been allowed into the Eurozone to begin with. Also, a country on the gold standard can print money for a time, but sooner or later confidence is eroded and the system collapses.

Raising money by improving the current account balance through increased exports is another way of dealing with foreign debt denominated in a non-local currency, although this is a more long term policy and cannot be enacted overnight.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Sorry, thems the facts.  You should thank heavens that we now have this fantasy land of paper currency.  A settlement these days consists of a postcard with the amount and the proper signatures.  The amount, at least, is usually encoded in the sender's private cypher code.  Other clauses may be encrypted as well, not so much for secrecy, but because they are being sent by "expensive" cable.  (I'll bet letters of credit go by fax today, but when I was doing it, you cabled.)

[raja_indy14 8]

Sorry, what are the facts?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Pretty much laid out in the previous discussion.  A specie standard for a currency means that final settlement is made by shipments of metal.

[saltandsauce 0]

let me clear something up for you all.

living on Welfare is NOT i repeat NOT pleasant in any way shape or form.

1, you don't get that much money, people at school would face the choice "do i get my child a school uniform/one that fits" or do we go hungry for 3 days?" (my aunt was a primary school teacher in a council estate and encountered this a lot)

2, unemployment is intensley boring and unfulfilling, once you are on it, employerslove saying "why haven't you worked for x months/years" and it doesn't matter what you say, they WILL NOT employ you because you are "welfare scum" after 3 months of unemployment.

3, when you are unemployed it is normal to apply several hundred times before you get an interview. imagine the effect 300 "your application has not been successful"replies has on your mentality and you will wonder what the point of even applying is after the 200th application.

4, you will more than likely live in a crap housing estate or public housing. where you are exposed to lots of "i am desperate crime" like mugging or "i am colossally bored" crime (like vandalism and recreational violence)

this miserable atmosphere where you are surrounded by hundreds of other unemployed people, no jobs will be available locally and the constant threat of "keep pointlessly looking for work or we will cut the remaining money you get away from you" eats away at your self esteem (and eventually your mental capacity)

so what if you don't have to go to work, when you don't have work to occupy you, waking hours are incredibly hard to fill if work doesn't take up somewhere around a third of your waking hours. it becomes very hard to meet people since you have little/nothing to talk about. it becomes hard to maintain friendships due to nothing to talk about. you can't take up hobbies because you don't have any money for one and chances are, none are available except alcohol and narcotics.

the sensible ones try to get some at least some enjoyment out of it since there isn't any alternative and those who play the system do it out of spite for the system or sheer greed since you can't really get money any other way.

and no, you can't get any bank loans (anymore) to even create your own work so don't even think about "you could make yourself a job" and that's to make sure any bothersome "entrepeneurialism" is crushed.

[Duke87 1,070]

Welfare isn't "pleasant", but you have to think in relative terms here. What's easier/more enjoyable? Being on welfare, or getting up off your ass to go to work 40+ hours a week? You'd be surprised how many people will readily choose the former. Those who grow up in poor areas find themselves surrounded by a community where it is commonplace and perfectly acceptable, so they aren't shamed out of it. In fact, quite the opposite: it's what they come to expect, because they see no reason to believe they can really do better.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In 1990 I was let go with about 8,000 others in a corporate downsize when a decision was made to get out of the large mainframe business.  At that time I was earning something in the upper half of the five figure range and we were living quite comfortably up to our income.  My wife was disabled with a severe panic disorder which was just coming under control.  I had just invited my teen-aged, out-of-control daughter to live elsewhere and things were very tense.  The day I was let go, the mail included a surrogate court writ for support of said daughter who was living with the out-laws (wife's former in-laws).  We also had a son in Grade 7, who was doing well.

After suing the company for wrongful dismissal, I got 8 months severance, and after that went on to Employment Insurance Benefits while looking for work in my field.  I landed a contract programming job with an aircraft manufacturer because their key programmer had left, and they needed something done soon.  This evaporated when this idiot decided he made a mistake and came back to the company.  I got a week's notice and since it was contract, and loaded in their favor, I had no ground to stand on.  The contract outfit couldn't find me any more work.

We sold our place in Toronto and moved to Innisfil (Barrie area) on Lake Simcoe, into a house we had built on the proceeds of our sale.  I was still on EIB, but found part time work with a private vocational college teaching computer basics and programming to other people who were mostly on EIB or welfare (under the Ontario Works Programme).  This got me about $400 per week, which had to be reported to the EI people, who cut my benefits, slightly it turned out, since you are allowed to earn a pittance when on EIB.  Later on, I transferred to another branch of the college in another town, and this went well, except for the lousy hours, while extending my EIB by paying premiums (mandatory) from my earnings, and, since I was over 60 by then, collecting my Canada Pension Plan benefits on a reduced basis, cut by 1/35 for each year you were under 65 when you took it.   My son transferred into Grade 8 in Innisfil, then completed high school.

My wife was very diligent when dealing with the government, and lo and behold, with the co-operation of her shrink, got onto a CPP disability benefit, and life improved a little.  We had a legacy fund for the kids, and there was about $25K in it for my son's education.  He was accepted at the University of Western Ontario, and since he was now out of the house, we decided that our two story, four bedroom house of somewhere around 2000 square feet was a burden, so we moved into a bungalow in Wasaga Beach, with two bedrooms and a finished basement. 

Of course, we were getting older, and when our son graduated from Western, he decided to continue living in London, Ontario.  (He had a girl friend who was a graduate student at the university.)  He discovered that his B.A. in Philosophy and $1.25 would get him a cup of coffee.  It was either return to school for an LLB or other professional designation or get a trade.  He elected the latter and spent three more academic years at Fanshaw College getting a Diploma in Science Laboratory Technology.  By this time he had student loans over $20,000 plus a guaranteed (by me?) student line of credit of $12,000, all of which he had to start payments on once he graduated.  We had also accumulated some debt on his behalf, and on our own.  He got a job with a secretive outfit that had a special process for diamond coating machine tools.  It was dependent on the auto sector, and all seemed well.  Then his girl got a post-doc appointment at a U.S. school, and dumped him hard!  He bounced around for a couple of years, working, but hardly doing anything else, but he met a nice girl who worked in the University Library, and later on they got married, and things seemed on track again.  (Whew!)  Lately, things must have taken a downturn because he declared personal bankruptcy, and I wound up with his student loan.

Somewhere in here, we had a reconciliation with our daughter, who was being ill treated by the out-laws, and we got her her own place.  Then we had to go to court to get the support order quashed.  It turned out that the out-laws were buying drugs with the support money and their kids were stealing from our daughter.  We had no proof, so could do nothing.  She got a job as a vet tech apprentice, and things were going well for her and her wannabe band singer boy friend.  They got married, and moved into a nice place in mid-town Toronto.  She went to work in a cable outfit's phone center, and was doing very well, moving up their ladder of support people, when they abruptly moved the phone center out of town and would not pay relocation expenses.  She persevered by travelling, but eventually collapsed with panic disorder(apparently heredetary in her female line) and went on long-term disability, where she remains, much to the chagrin of the cable outfit's insurance company.  Meanwhile, the entertainment ambitions of her husband died, and he was disabled when he fell off a roof onto a conveyer belt, injuring his back.  Since he had always worked under-the-table, he had no benefits of any kind.  This is what you get for working for your step-father's businesses and allowing him to duck source deductions.  Poor chap, he was now a kept man, with no income.  My daughter was infanticipating, so they dropped everything in Toronto and moved to Newfoundland to be with his birth family.  I gather that they are doing well there, and that he is working at something.  They have presented me with a rather cute grand-daughter, so all is well with them.

In 2007, my wife died suddenly of an overwhelming infection when she was in hospital for a simple bit of surgery.  This was due to the fact that she was heavily on steroids for her asthma, and it masked the symptoms of the infection.  After the surgery, the infection became septicemia, and it took her off in about 8 hours.  Not the hospital's nor the surgeon's fault.  I read the pathology report with blood in my eye, but could find nothing to hang any kind of suit on.  So, now my income was reduced by my wife's pension payments, which were replaced by a $200 a month survivor's allowance.  I am getting my full CPP benefits plus the old age supplement since I am now over 65 and the maximum GIS that is part of that, so my income is around $1,500 per month.  Not enough to pay my mortgage and stay alive, so I am being foreclosed by the bank, and forced into a senior's apartment complex that I can just afford.

So that's what life is like for old folks who still want to live in some comfort.  At the new place, I have a bedroom, kitchen, sitting room and a small balcony (and a bathroom, of course).  None of the rooms are large enough to swing a cat, but it keeps the rain and snow off my head.  Since I am having a flare up of my RA of some kind, my mobility is very limited, so I am just as well off in the apartment, as I no longer will have any property problems, maintenance, etc. and I have come full circle from cliff dwelling to cliff dwelling in about 50 years.  Like Captain John Carter, I still live!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

You know, I never said that that described everyone on welfare.

Naturally, that wouldn't be a fair assesment.

The fact remains, though, that if you put too much of a safety net in place, some people will start using it as a hammock.

In the earlier days of welfare, you'd have people refusing it because they thought it insulting to their dignity to be on it. But nowadays, our society has come to accept it. There's no shame in it, and so motivation to get off the system is lacking. So instead, you have people becoming dependant on it, draining off the nation's resources without providing in return.

Now, if someone is handicapped, or in this situation temporarily, they can be excused. But there are people in it for the long term that would be perfectly capable of working if they had to, and that isn't right. That demonstrates two things. First, there is a lack of shame on the welfaree's part and on society's part. Second, there is too much enablement of the behavior in the way the system is operated.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Welfare families, like the poor, will always be with us.  Some just don't have the incentive to do anything else, and there are not enough people who care to get them motivated.  Some abuse the system and bask in the freeloading while conducting subfusc business operations and hauling in cash, a lot of it illegal.  Some enter the system with good intentions to get off as soon as possible, but after the 500th or 5000th job application, they just give up.

Many people on welfare are those who fall through the cracks of our society, and manage to get caught by the safety net.  We should give thanks that these people manage to avoid sleeping under bridges or on the streets.  Homelessness is tantamount to hopelessness in many cases.

My pension benefits are more than I would or could get on welfare, so I am glad that all those years of paying into the CPP and other taxes has resulted in a safety net for me.  On the other hand, should I find out that I am eligible for any further taxpayer benefits, I will be going after them, foot, horse and marines.  I worked for many years, paid a lot of taxes and premiums into various pension schemes, and I will go after any government program for which I can qualify.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Duke87

You know, I never said that that described everyone on welfare.

Naturally, that wouldn't be a fair assesment.

The fact remains, though, that if you put too much of a safety net in place, some people will start using it as a hammock.

In the earlier days of welfare, you'd have people refusing it because they thought it insulting to their dignity to be on it. But nowadays, our society has come to accept it. There's no shame in it, and so motivation to get off the system is lacking. So instead, you have people becoming dependant on it, draining off the nation's resources without providing in return.

Now, if someone is handicapped, or in this situation temporarily, they can be excused. But there are people in it for the long term that would be perfectly capable of working if they had to, and that isn't right. That demonstrates two things. First, there is a lack of shame on the welfaree's part and on society's part. Second, there is too much enablement of the behavior in the way the system is operated.

quote>

No, you didn't say it described everyone. You just parrot the rhetoric of scumbag millionaire politicians and ramble on about how there's "not enough shame" and how people are "draining off the nation's resources", while at no point actually deigning to come up with anything that supports the positions that: 1) 'The abuse of welfare is anything other than an aberration' and 2) 'There is no / too little shame or social stigma attached to even temporary reliance on welfare'.

So it's like totally different.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I fail to see why anyone who, through no fault of their own, should be made a social pariah because they are poor in $.  Many of these people are anything but poor in spirit.

[saltandsauce 0]

i propose a social experiment.

in a city with chronically high unemployment, (like Glasgow) build a large employer (like a textile mill) and subsidise it with welfare money and pay low wages and since it's public housing, lower the rents to compensate. offer the jobs only to the local people (you give them a job) who live within walking distance of the factory or large employer

measure alcohol sales, crime, school results and number of drug addicts and possibly even the level of litter.

you will no doubt find alcohol sales going down, crime going down, school results rising a little, having work helps to keep recovering addicts too occupied to relapse because of boredom (it's easier to forget cravings if you're busy than if you have 13 long hours of nothing to do/think about) i'm not saying that there wouldn't be any relapses but the numbers would dcrease by a statistically significant amount.

i will no doubt be accused of generalising and I AM generalising i don't know specifics since this experiment hasn't happened.

it's my hypothesis. you do it before an experiment.

someone with more experience with drug addicts is welcome to say otherwise but i'm trying to make an educated guess.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Now that's an interesting proposition.  Do you make working at the  job conditional on getting everything else?  And, of course, you take these people off the dole, so it is a matter of work, hog, or die.

Since there are individual residences and not a barraks of some sort, this isn't quite a workhouse.

[Duke of York 23]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

i propose a social experiment.

in a city with chronically high unemployment, (like Glasgow) build a large employer (like a textile mill) and subsidise it with welfare money and pay low wages and since it's public housing, lower the rents to compensate. offer the jobs only to the local people (you give them a job) who live within walking distance of the factory or large employer

measure alcohol sales, crime, school results and number of drug addicts and possibly even the level of litter.

you will no doubt find alcohol sales going down, crime going down, school results rising a little, having work helps to keep recovering addicts too occupied to relapse because of boredom (it's easier to forget cravings if you're busy than if you have 13 long hours of nothing to do/think about) i'm not saying that there wouldn't be any relapses but the numbers would dcrease by a statistically significant amount.

i will no doubt be accused of generalising and I AM generalising i don't know specifics since this experiment hasn't happened.

it's my hypothesis. you do it before an experiment.

someone with more experience with drug addicts is welcome to say otherwise but i'm trying to make an educated guess.

quote>

 That is a interesting idea...Matter of fact it makes good sense. You could locate the industry near the Federal Housing like you said that way it will be convenient. Wow they would gain work experience and actual have a future for a career. Now in order to turn this socially responsible idea into a competitive idea based on profit for the government would not be to hard because the government could compete on a more global economy due to lower wages. Ha , but the lower wages will not impact the worker because the Government has ownership and regulates the cost of housing and living expenses. Its Ideas like this that would help the Global economy. I would also like to take this opportunity to say that things like banning Soft Drinks on government property would make astronomical strides towards a more well kept and profitable healthier society. And for those who say it would devastate jobs...Think of it this way. People will always need something to drink so all we are doing is replacing unhealthy products with productive products for the good of the public.

-DOY

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Mr. Stevenson and I have said this before.  "Are there no workhouses?  Are there no prisons?"

The idea is so 19th century, Mr. Scrooge.

[Empowered One 41]

[Duke of York 23]

 The guy makes a few points sure...But one thing people do not realize is that humanity cannot handle complete

freedom. Sure there are some anarchist that would say no government and just let public will lead the way. Sorry to

say that is not possible. Without government there will be no order and there will never be enough liberty to please the

masses...Sometimes it is within humanities best interest for there to be a system. Problem is the by product of structure is

corruption. But it is what it is and as long as people have the right to education and the right to a quality life then contentment is necessary. From that starting point ambition can start to lead the way. But the day there is no self sacrifice

which is a date long ago the erosion of society will show...

DOY

[DARKO 3]

Everything is an illusion. if you ever knew the history of Goldman Sachs and other you would know this. The United States are not in debt. How the hell could you be if you can print funny money at will. Everything(unfortuntely) works off of a federal reserve note. Kennedy in the sixities signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury. This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill were enormous. The federal resevere notes are not backed by anything. He would have put them out of business. Are you surprised now his head was blown off five motnhs later?

The way Banks shift money and how it grows with each loan is beyond your average persons belief as well. It's all a ramshackle joke.

Bottom line is I always find it funny when these hardcore anti socialists act as if they are strong proofing this country against it. Get a clue, its built into our history already if you care to take a deeper look. It's all an illusion just like most things in life. Especially government. Ignornace is bliss as they say.

[fabricio83tst 28]

ANARCHY

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

We seem to have picked up a couple of anarchists.  Well and good.  Now let's see what an anarchistic society would be like?

Since there is no government of any kind, what happens to people who deliberately injure or kill others?  Nothing, because there is no structure to deal with them.  Maybe some one will injure them back.  This is the way feuds get started, and now we have clans feuding with each others.  Of course, each clan has a head, who is the governor of the clan.  So much for no government.

Someone puts something in food, say milk, to increase its bulk or whiteness to make it sell better.  Does anyone care if the substance is white lead?  No.  There are no regulations.  People die of heavy metal poisoning, and we can't prove who did it because there is no police structure with forensic laboratories to show where this stuff came from.

Because all schools and universities need administration, they are closed.  Soon, education will be what you can get on the street.  From books, you say?  What books, we burned them all last winter to keep warm.  Seems the hydro grid failed and there was nobody to fix it.

Maybe you Bloc Noir types should give it a little more thought.  I hope you all know how to build mud huts with thatched roofs.

[Duke87 1,070]

What you are describing is chaotic anarchy. Most people who call themselves "anarchists" today do not advocate that. What they advocate generally more resembles communal anarchy: a system where everyone as a society cooperates and lives in harmony without the need for a government or authority.

The idea is that in such a system you would not need laws or police or anything like that, since whenever anyone did anything obviously wrong or harmful, the people themselves would deal with them. Justice would be done through protest, boycott, and lynch mob.

A radical idea? Definitely. One that would work? Of course not. But there it is.

[danny_1990 0]

Socialism is better ofcourse, look at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Free healthcare, free education and AMAZING music!!

[Duke of York 23]

Originally posted by: danny_1990

Socialism is better ofcourse, look at the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Free healthcare, free education and AMAZING music!!quote>

 Yeah that was what really ticks me off about imperialism is the music XD

DOY

[DARKO 3]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

We seem to have picked up a couple of anarchists.  Well and good.  Now let's see what an anarchistic society would be like?

Since there is no government of any kind, what happens to people who deliberately injure or kill others?  Nothing, because there is no structure to deal with them.  Maybe some one will injure them back.  This is the way feuds get started, and now we have clans feuding with each others.  Of course, each clan has a head, who is the governor of the clan.  So much for no government.

Someone puts something in food, say milk, to increase its bulk or whiteness to make it sell better.  Does anyone care if the substance is white lead?  No.  There are no regulations.  People die of heavy metal poisoning, and we can't prove who did it because there is no police structure with forensic laboratories to show where this stuff came from.

Because all schools and universities need administration, they are closed.  Soon, education will be what you can get on the street.  From books, you say?  What books, we burned them all last winter to keep warm.  Seems the hydro grid failed and there was nobody to fix it.

Maybe you Bloc Noir types should give it a little more thought.  I hope you all know how to build mud huts with thatched roofs.

quote>

I'm not so sure how stating the reality of how things really work equates to being an anarchist. Enlighten me.....

[Duke of York 23]

 Omg ...I mean I just can't stand it...What on earth has happened through the course of History!? Socialist or

Capitalist set aside. See George Washington had something. He had a dream. He had a passion that meant more than pleasing some special interest or multi national companies. Are citizens really content to have these pencil pushing beauracrat as leaders these days? I mean all politicians have this magical solution like the " Hope " and " Change " train. Or the whole privatize the world regime. Though not one of them really do much. One cuts taxes the other spends some money and all of them stare into a TelePrompTer just to be able to speak to the people...Hey if they really cared about what they believed in would they need that TelePrompTer ? No they would not. One day and I don't know when I hope the world wants more than a pretty face. Someone who is ambitious and really will put social ideas before the dollar...Such pitiful expectations these days compared to leaders of the past..

DOY