[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Angelo Bertolli]

Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:55:05 -0400
> Angelo Bertolli wrote:
>
>   
>> Jed S. Baer wrote:
>>     
>>> "Disaster capitalism"? Please, point to any example where the sincere
>>> pursuit of socialism has resulted in prosperity for "the masses". See
>>> again the CSM article I linked above. Actually, I don't even know if
>>> that's a good reply, since I can't imagine what you're referring to by
>>> such terminology.
>>>   
>>>       
>> The United States and Sweden are two examples of countries that have 
>> both created strong basis for economy (according to McCain) through 
>> socialist ideas.  Are you really going to deny that it is the socialist 
>> side of our capitalistic democracies that creates a strong middle class?
>>     
>
> Please point to the "strong middle class" in the Soviet Union.
>   
> The United States thrived because of capitalism. Yes, I absolutely deny
> that socialism is responsible for the incredible economic growth of the
> U.S.
>   
I didn't say it was totally responsible,  and I didn't say that 
"socialism is better than capitalism."  What I see is that we have by 
default strong capitalism, and that when add appropriate socialist 
ideas, we develop a strong society.  Of course capitalism is needed.  
Otherwise this would be a conversation about communism.  I think the 
colloquial idea and discussion of socialism always implies there is 
capitalism.

> Also, the U.S. is a Republic, not a democracy.
>   
Wrong.  It's a constitutional republic AND a representative democracy.

> Don't know a lot about Sweden, but it is nominally a Constitutional
> Monarchy, though real political power is vested in the parliament.
> Wikipedia says it has a "market economy". Here's a bit of interesting
> paste:
>
>  =============
> Sweden has always provided solid support for free trade (except
> agriculture), free immigration, and strong property rights. After World
> War II a succession of governments increased the welfare state and the
> tax burden, and Sweden's GDP per capita ranking fell from the 4th to 14th
> place in a few decades.[80]
>
> Sweden started to move away from this model in the 1980s, and according
> to OECD and McKinsey, Sweden has recently been relatively fast in
> liberalization compared to countries such as France. Deregulation-induced
> competition helped Sweden to halt the economic decline and restore strong
> growth rates in the 2000s.[81][69] The current Swedish government is
> continuing the trend to pursue moderate reforms.[82][69] Growth has been
> higher than in many other EU-15 countries.
>  =============
>
> Free trade and strong support for property rights are hardly hallmarks of
> socialism. Note the results cited there for how GDP fell as the welfare
> state grew. Note the part about de-regulation.
>
> So, Sweden has socialized medicine, welfare, etc.? My opinion would then
> be that Sweden has done well despite that, not because of it.
>   

Again, I think you're missing the point:  everyones believe in 
capitalism.  I do, you do, Sweden does, etc.  Where we differ is that I 
see someone such as yourself saying "100% capitalism only!" and I 
disagree.  I think there needs to be some socialist philosophy, as there 
exists in all western countries.  I do think we should have collective 
ownership of certain things (the core philosophy of socialism).  Humans 
do have some shared resources and we do all affect each other in some 
areas.  To not acknowledge this in your political philosophy is to have 
an unrealistic political philosophy.

And one point I'd like to make is that even though the measurement of 
GDP for a country is important it's not the only thing that's 
important.  To bring it to a personal level, I'd rather make less money 
and have an enjoyable life than have tons of money and be miserable.

Angelo