|
On November 03 2010 07:36 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:22 misaTO wrote:On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote:On November 03 2010 07:16 misaTO wrote:
Better to be poor in Sweden than in the US of A. Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US. http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything. Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum.
And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go.
Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around.
Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
|
On November 03 2010 07:41 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:39 misaTO wrote:All industrialized states are run by bureaucracy  . It's necesary any modern Democracy to work, which of course include the USA. Don't you have a DMV ? Well, those are burocrats. The FDA? Also burocrats. Burocrats, burocrats EVERYWHERE. I think you missed the part where Romantic believed a Socialist country doesn't require a centralized government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
|
On November 03 2010 07:24 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:01 Romantic wrote:
I believe we operate under consumer co-op laws with non-capital stock since Federal law on the subject is terrible.
Amount paid is democratically decided as opposed to market value of the stock.
You can own it indirectly with a trust too, if you want (WINCO is a regional business that does this through the worker's retirement fund). Like I said, if you give every worker a share of every company, that's still private ownership, especially if you let them trade shares for other shares. Also, I'm sure your co-op has the co-op version of directors and executives, because it's impractical to have every decision be put to a shareholder vote. So, in your ideal socialist society, who makes such important decisions such as which industry gets which workers, and the output of such industries? Surely it's beyond the expertise of the workers.
Talking to you is like pulling teeth. Yes, there must be shares for the legal requirements of operating in the United States.
While technically a shareholder's vote in the legal sense, we spend a good 30-60 minutes a day discussing various things. We have a rotating manager for practicality reasons and he\she can easily be overridden or voted out and is mostly a figurehead when people want to, "Talk to the manager". It is a dreaded position and for that reason we take turns with it.
Why would I be the one to decide which industry gets workers? You are still looking at this through authoritarian glasses like I somehow need to decide myself how many people work in the steel factory. Perhaps the steel company hires and fires people whenever they want to?
Edit: Your use of "socialist country" confirms you do not understand that nations do not need to exist nor have specific and uniform characteristics. I am not imposing anything on anybody.
|
On November 03 2010 07:36 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:22 misaTO wrote:On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote:On November 03 2010 07:16 misaTO wrote:
Better to be poor in Sweden than in the US of A. Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US. http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything. Refer to my sig
Well, at least Churchill recognizes what's wrong. Being rich is OP. We should fix that, cause there is no balance team but us. (sorry for the sc thing XD i am getting bored.
|
On November 03 2010 07:42 Hans-Titan wrote:
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
He's toast; no one is predicting that he'll come close to winning.
|
On November 03 2010 07:40 HadronCollid wrote:Monetarily yes they have more money working as Gardeners. What they miss out on: Free university, Health-care, 100% organic food (cuba has the best crop-rotation system in the world). So you're right in stating that they (Cuban Emigrants) have more money yes. But are they "Wealthier" I Disagree. Wealth can mean a lot of things.
Yes, adjusted for welfare benefits and PPP, Cuban-Americans are still wealthier. This is because most Cubans are pretty much dirt poor, and Cuban-Americans are richer than the average American.
|
Yes, adjusted for welfare benefits and PPP, Cuban-Americans are still wealthier. This is because most Cubans are pretty much dirt poor, and Cuban-Americans are richer than the average American.
I always laugh when people say "Cuban-Americans are richer than the Average American"
So are: Canadian Americans
British Americans
Japanese Americans
Chinese Americans
Trend? Maybe its because Cubans are so KICK ASS coming from Cuba (because Cuba subsidised education they can have the equivalent of a college degree for free) which gives them a intellectual edge over their competitors looking for Gardening jobs. (who would you hire Buckwheat Bill from Arizona, or Jesus (Pronounced Heyzeus for the life noobs) who is a civil engineer who can cut a bush into a motherfucking Unicorn)
|
On November 03 2010 07:40 HadronCollid wrote:Monetarily yes they have more money working as Gardeners. What they miss out on: Free university, Health-care, 100% organic food (cuba has the best crop-rotation system in the world). So you're right in stating that they (Cuban Emigrants) have more money yes. But are they "Wealthier" I Disagree. Wealth can mean a lot of things.
The fact that they came here and don't wanna go back is proof that to them at least, they prefer to be here than there.
Notwithstanding all the "organic food" (wooOOOOooOOoo) and "free" education in Cuba.
BTW, I hear that in Cuba even lunch is free! 
|
First I'd like to point out this poll doesn't really mean anything pertaining to your point. At this point I'm merely assuming your point is that the US is a good country to move to, perhaps because of social/political freedom or economic opportunity or something?
The article itself even alludes that there are many factors for the results of the poll - immigration policy, joining up with existing family in the States, the ease of getting into said countries, etc. It doesn't necessarily have to mean anything about the quality of life in the countries, especially since the US is in kind of a unique position, what with being the forefront of immigration, "give me your poor, your tired..." etc.
If other countries like Denmark or New Zealand had similar PR, immigration policies, and ease of access, I'm sure they would rank just as highly, if not higher, than the US and Canada.
On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote:Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US. http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif
Second thing I'd like to point out is that this graph doesn't mean anything pertaining to your point either, because you're basically stating that higher income is "better" or the only thing that matters or something or that income even directly relates to wealth... which anyone with a high-paying job but lots of gambling debts can attest to being as complete untruth.
When we define "better" by other factors like, I dunno, quality of living, standards of health or education, levels of wealth inequality or crime, life expectancy or infant mortality, or even reported levels of happiness or satisfaction with the government, you know, silly insignificant stuff like that, I could post a dozen other charts and graphs proving that the US is at the bottom of the totem pole.
I'm not here to refute your points or argue with you or anything, I agree with you actually on a number of things and think you provide some good arguments, I just think it's a cop-out and an unsatisfactory debate tactic to simply post links to graphs or polls that don't even really support the point you're trying to make.
|
BTW, I hear that in Cuba even lunch is free!
Every day I woke up, Breakfast-Dinner was free. It should be noted the last time I went i paid for "all inclusive"
|
On November 03 2010 07:52 HadronCollid wrote:Every day I woke up, Breakfast-Dinner was free. It should be noted the last time I went i paid for "all inclusive"
I think you are missing something here....
|
On November 03 2010 07:55 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:52 HadronCollid wrote:BTW, I hear that in Cuba even lunch is free! Every day I woke up, Breakfast-Dinner was free. It should be noted the last time I went i paid for "all inclusive" I think you may be missing something here....
I was making a joke...a Ha ha joke, you know the kind?
|
On November 03 2010 07:56 HadronCollid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:55 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 07:52 HadronCollid wrote:BTW, I hear that in Cuba even lunch is free! Every day I woke up, Breakfast-Dinner was free. It should be noted the last time I went i paid for "all inclusive" I think you may be missing something here.... I was making a joke...a Ha ha joke, you know the kind?
oh..ok good. I was worried for a second. Sometimes I am slow on the jokes.
|
On November 03 2010 07:42 Hans-Titan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:36 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 07:22 misaTO wrote:On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote:On November 03 2010 07:16 misaTO wrote:
Better to be poor in Sweden than in the US of A. Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US. http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything. Refer to my sig Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between. Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
|
So...apparently Nancy Pelosi is still claiming that the democrats are gonna hold onto the House.
Why make such pronoucements? Its not going to affect the outcome at this point. Might as well not make pronouncements that are never gonna happen and just make yourself look dumb.
|
On November 03 2010 07:59 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:42 Hans-Titan wrote:On November 03 2010 07:36 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 07:22 misaTO wrote:On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote:On November 03 2010 07:16 misaTO wrote:
Better to be poor in Sweden than in the US of A. Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US. http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything. Refer to my sig Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between. Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years. Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
|
On November 03 2010 08:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:59 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 07:42 Hans-Titan wrote:On November 03 2010 07:36 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 07:22 misaTO wrote:On November 03 2010 07:20 domovoi wrote:On November 03 2010 07:16 misaTO wrote:
Better to be poor in Sweden than in the US of A. Depends. It's better to be in the bottom 20% of Sweden than the bottom 20% of the US, but anything higher than that, it's better to be in the US. http://i52.tinypic.com/2s9su3q.gif I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything. Refer to my sig Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between. Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years. Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act. Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Nah, Romantic nailed it.
|
Nah, Romantic nailed it.
Agreed^^
|
Looks like Paul is going to win. 1 Tea Partier going to Washington.. scary.
|
On November 03 2010 08:04 On_Slaught wrote:
Looks like Paul is going to win. 1 Tea Partier going to Washington.. scary.
Scary GOOD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
