Brits Give Selves National Castration

[John Uskglass]

Your gloating because you tried to put words into my mouth in the EU thread was bad enough, but this tops that one. Y'know, if I were Roshambo I would've banned you a long time ago for mouthstuffing. For all clarity, what I mean to say is:

So...you can troll me on this issue in the excuse of 'having fun', but when I start......?

To re-rail the thread (although the imigrant identity discussion is fairly interesting) I don't believe it's anything to do with the Navy. It's just some recreationists trying to be PC.

But it really is beyond bizzare. Why recreate it if you destroy the history in the process?

This is true, but the Island mentality disappeared when we tried to make inroads with either of the two camps (US & Euro), as we ceased trying to exist as a separate entity.

Meh. A lot of people would disagree with you there.

Personally, I feel we are much more similar to the Euros than America (Socialist-derived government, rather than theocratic conservative) despite the American claim to our culture. But that is just my opinion.

New Labour ain't your average Socialist Party; it was founded by a Christian Fundementalist, and under Blair the only thing Socialist about it is the red flag. Then again, much the same thing has happened across the continent.

Labour has much more in common with the Democratic Party then the Parti Socialiste, as both are more Left Liberal parties then Liberal Left parties.

Politically, we are more conservative, but the UK is also more conservative then most of the Continent. Britan just does'nt have some of the bizzare Leftist politics of Germany or ESPECIALLY France.

Just compare the Mitterrand and Blair administrations; Mitterrand carried out the last socializing economic project in European history in 1981. Blair, on the other hand, is very notable for getting rid of Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution which talks of the workers owning the means of production.

 

[Brother None]

So...you can troll me on this issue in the excuse of 'having fun', but when I start......?

Big words there. Just because I enjoy the debate in a light-hearted manner doesn't mean I'm trolling you, and that's a far shot from mouth-stuffing. Putting words into someone's mouth is pretty ultimate bad manners, don't expect to get away with it.

But it really is beyond bizzare. Why recreate it if you destroy the history in the process?

Tradition beats removing it whole, PC beats keeping it the same, hence you get this

(note how I do agree this is pretty Frithdamn stupid, the whole PC thing here, but hey)

Then again, much the same thing has happened across the continent.

Yeah, and generally with terrible results, say Italy, France, the Netherlands and GB. All caught in a kind of right-wing neoliberalism, all falling apart under it.

Politically, we are more conservative, but the UK is also more conservative then most of the Continent. Britan just does'nt have some of the bizzare Leftist politics of Germany or ESPECIALLY France.

Just compare the Mitterrand and Blair administrations; Mitterrand carried out the last socializing economic project in European history in 1981. Blair, on the other hand, is very notable for getting rid of Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution which talks of the workers owning the means of production.

You're confusing several things

I'll repeat this once more: the people of GB aren't necessarily HAPPY with New Labour or Maggy Thatcher. The whole three-party thing means people have few alternatives than vote between two evils, much like your two-party system, but that doesn't mean people think everything is going a-ok.

To conclude, however, that since New Labour and Maggy Thatcher are the signposts of British politics and have been for decades now, Britain must necessarily be more right-wing than it is left is pure foolishness. These are signs of the times. Temporary insanity if you will.

Historically Britain is a lot closer in political spectrum to Europe than to the USA. Blair is just endemic, but considering the fact that the choice is between Left-of-the-Right and Right-of-the-Right, with Lib Dem featuring as an irrelevant but wildly growing power, it's not surprising that the English go for Left-of-the-Right. What else can they do? Not vote?

Yes, GB is more conservative than *some parts* of the continent (depends on what you define as conservative, but I think a lot of countries outweigh Britain, yet they still feel a part of the EU), but it's pretty far from counting Center-Right as the "Liberal left", as you Americans do. You people don't even *have* a Left-Wing political power. Frith in the Sky.

PS: do you even realise how stupid it is to say the last socialising economic project in Europe happened in 1981. 1981

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Someone read Watership Down recently...?


Our standards of left wing-right wing are vastly different from your's it seems Kharn. You seem to assume that left must of necessity imply pure socialism, and everything to the right of that is conservative. The Democratic Party was dominant in the 90's, so it is hardly fair to say a "left" major party does not exist. It embraces a VASt spectrum of wildly divergent interests that range from socialism to centrism. I failt os ee where you offer "proof" that the Democratic Party is center-right.

 

[Brother None]

Someone read Watership Down recently...?

I've generally always read Watership Down recently. Hence the rank.

Using "Frith" rather than "God" is just a note to show respect to religious people. Not that I always remember to do so.

Our standards of left wing-right wing are vastly different from your's it seems Kharn. You seem to assume that left must of necessity imply puresocialism, and everything to the right of that is conservative. The Democratic Party was dominant in the 90's, so it is hardly fair to say a "left" major party does not exist. It embraces a VASt spectrum of wildly divergent interests that range from socialism to centrism. I failt os ee where oyu offer "proof" that the Democratic Party is center-right.

No, hang on, you misunderstood me.

Left and Right are relative values. You have the whole political spectrum, left of the center is left, right is right. Hence the left in the US are the Democrats, right are the Republicans. I know this.

However, this doesn't mean I can't transport a party cross-country for comparison purposes.

My point was that if you took the values of the Democratic party and transported them to, say, the French political system, you'd end up being placed somewhere in the mid-Right Wing. Republicans would be extreme-Right Wing.

GB doesn't have this same political spectrum, but I was saying that GB's political spectrum does not differ from that of the "Socialist" mainland European countries as much as the USA political spectrum does

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

NOW I remember that custom title. For some reason I kept thinking it was Arabic. Ok then, my apologies...been a long time since I read it.


As for your main point...I generally tookt hat as a given I suppose. I thought you were commenting on the peculiarities of American politics as not having an "actual" left wing among the two major parties. We also have this strange libertarianism that crops up all over the spectrum, with the conflicting wishes of low tax/strong economy and social awareness/liberal human rights. A pity that one cannot find both together in either of the two major parties.

From my Conservative friend in Britain, I generally get the feeling that socialist programs such as national health care are a given, but is this truly different from such thigns as Social Security being "inviolate" in the United States? We might not be as divergent as you seem to imply with your statement.

 

[John Uskglass]

GB doesn't have this same political spectrum, but I was saying that GB's political spectrum does not differ from that of the "Socialist" mainland European countries as much as the USA political spectrum does

I'll largely agree with you there; most UK politics now have a distinctly continental feel.

My point was that if you took the values of the Democratic party and transported them to, say, the French political system, you'd end up being placed somewhere in the mid-Right Wing. Republicans would be extreme-Right Wing.

Republicans are not The National Front, dude. It's not really fair or comparable. Republicans are'nt even on the right on some issues.

Big words there. Just because I enjoy the debate in a light-hearted manner doesn't mean I'm trolling you, and that's a far shot from mouth-stuffing. Putting words into someone's mouth is pretty ultimate bad manners, don't expect to get away with it.

Okay, fair enough, I'll refrain from it.

(note how I do agree this is pretty Frithdamn stupid, the whole PC thing here, but hey)

Damn right. Death to the tyrants of Political Correctness!

Yeah, and generally with terrible results, say Italy, France, the Netherlands and GB. All caught in a kind of right-wing neoliberalism, all falling apart under it.

Still better then anything under Socialism. Socialism is the economic equivilent of the disease in 28 Days Later; it makes people stupid and the talented run away.

Still; not even the Socialists in Europe believe in Socialism anymore. Even the French realize that Mitterrand screwed the fucking hooch. And a lot of people are finally starting to realize that the Social Market Economy does not work quite that well in the long run.

Historically Britain is a lot closer in political spectrum to Europe than to the USA. Blair is just endemic, but considering the fact that the choice is between Left-of-the-Right and Right-of-the-Right, with Lib Dem featuring as an irrelevant but wildly growing power, it's not surprising that the English go for Left-of-the-Right. What else can they do? Not vote?

Ah, so you are arguing that Britan would just love to have the Labour Party of the 1983 Election? Riiiight......

PS: do you even realise how stupid it is to say the last socialising economic project in Europe happened in 1981. 1981

I'd say it was the last of the large scale ones. And rightfully so; it was a huge fucking disaster. Then again, I don't know as much about Eurosocialism History as you do, even if I think you are somewhat biased in regards to it's present situation.

 

[Brother None]

Republicans are not The National Front, dude. It's not really fair or comparable. Republicans are'nt even on the right on some issues.

No, it's not, but Republicans would agree completely with the extreme right wing of French EXCEPT for its fascist tendencies. The fact that the right wing in continental Europe generally has to turn fascist before adopting economic and other policies that equal that of the USA says enough. Or do you think anyone BUT the National Front would try to appoint judges that, to quote my paper, "don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution" or "are against abortion"?

Still better then anything under Socialism. Socialism is the economic equivilent of the disease in 28 Days Later; it makes people stupid and the talented run away.

Still; not even the Socialists in Europe believe in Socialism anymore. Even the French realize that Mitterrand screwed the fucking hooch. And a lot of people are finally starting to realize that the Social Market Economy does not work quite that well in the long run.

Really?

Yet the US health care system, the most liberalized health care system I know of, is also the most expensive in the world, both for the State and for the people.

And yet Norway, the country with a higher GDP per capita than the US and the highest quality of life in the world, has a very, very long socialist history and is not a EU country

Yet, if I remember correctly, all countries above the USA in the quality of life world ranklist are countries with a socialist history

Yet all countries that tried to adopt liberalizing policies in their socialist countries met with pure failure. GB's systems of education and healthcare turned to shit. French healthcare after Chirac's liberalizations were done allowed hundreds of their elders to die. The Dutch railway, postal healthcare systems nearly collapsed after being liberalized, Italy is a mess after continued liberalizations policies.

In fact, from a historical perspective it's funny. All the EU-15 countries suffered heavily under WW II. They had to be released from Germany and then pay their dues, especially Germany and others. We gained aid, yes, but that's not the same as the USA, that was never attacked. Germany has had to deal with problems with re-integrating Eastern Germany. Belgium had to deal with Wallonia. GB had to deal with post-colonial stress. Portugal, Ireland and others were all in economic an economic crisis. Italy still has to deal with South Italy.

Yet almost all of these countries have socialist histories. Almost all that have fixed their problems did so under socialist guidance, a few exceptions nonwithstanding (for who socialism doesn't work that well and more capitalist tendencies do, good for them, they should continue as they are).

In fact, considering that Europe is a decrepit old nation and the USA is or was a young blooming one, I think the fact that both have more-or-less equal economies at the moment (in size, not in growth rate; one is endemic, the other is not) shows that the EU under socialist rule has been under good management, whereas the USA has been under constant mismanagement

Zing.

Also, I know you have a lot of empty rhetoric about economics, but did it ever occur to you I don't care so much about economic growth as I do about quality of life, and many Europeans do so with me?

Ah, so you are arguing that Britan would just love to have the Labour Party of the 1983 Election? Riiiight......

The Labour Party of 1983 had many other problems than being Left.

Did you even pay attention during the elections? Labour won, but shrunk. The most left party, the Liberal Democrats, had the biggest growth rate of all British parties, because it's either them or Tories or Tories-Redux AKA New Labour. I know you love Blair, but the British people don't.

I'd say it was the last of the large scale ones. And rightfully so; it was a huge fucking disaster. Then again, I don't know as much about Eurosocialism History as you do, even if I think you are somewhat biased in regards to it's present situation.

Strange how facts seem to support my bias, though. Eurosocialism is not the same as American socialism, when will you learn this? What is good for the States is not good for us, and vice versa.

I thought you were commenting on the peculiarities of American politics as not having an "actual" left wing among the two major parties. We also have this strange libertarianism that crops up all over the spectrum, with the conflicting wishes of low tax/strong economy and social awareness/liberal human rights. A pity that one cannot find both together in either of the two major parties.

One couldn't argue like that. The USA can't lack an "actual" left wing 'cause there is no such thing as an "actual" left wing. I can't just gauge political spectra by European standards and call it absolute.

From my Conservative friend in Britain, I generally get the feeling that socialist programs such as national health care are a given, but is this truly different from such thigns as Social Security being "inviolate" in the United States? We might not be as divergent as you seem to imply with your statement.

Yes, because the base concepts of the Social programs are wildly different

In the USA, it'd be impossible to change the current liberalized healthcare system

In France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., it'd be impossible to change the current socialized state-side healthcare system

Just because both are against change and both defend some kind of social program doesn't mean they're the same

 

[John Uskglass]

No, it's not, but Republicans would agree completely with the extreme right wing of French EXCEPT for its fascist tendencies. The fact that the right wing in continental Europe generally has to turn fascist before adopting economic and other policies that equal that of the USA says enough. Or do you think anyone BUT the National Front would try to appoint judges that, to quote my paper, "don't believe in Darwin's theory of evolution" or "are against abortion"?

Fascism is the key here. They are democratic parties that don't believe in racial superiorty or anything like that.

Frankly, I think you are thinking way too black and white here. Right and left are meaningless titles these days in which white supremicists can give money to the Nation of Islam because they share the same goals, when French Leninists, French Fascists and French Islamafundies join hands and sing protests against the EU.

Yet the US health care system, the most liberalized health care system I know of, is also the most expensive in the world, both for the State and for the people.

Yet people come from all over the world for medical care here because of the poor quality of many socialized health care systems. See;Quebec.

USA's healthcare system has problems, yes, but it can maintain itself.

And yet Norway, the country with a higher GDP per capita than the US and the highest quality of life in the world, has a very, very long socialist history and is not a EU country

I posted an article not a month ago on this exact subject. I don't really trust HDI or defenitions of highest quality of life anywhoo.

Yet, if I remember correctly, all countries above the USA in the quality of life world ranklist are countries with a socialist history

Australia and Canada.

Yet all countries that tried to adopt liberalizing policies in their socialist countries met with pure failure. GB's systems of education and healthcare turned to shit. French healthcare after Chirac's liberalizations were done allowed hundreds of their elders to die. The Dutch railway, postal healthcare systems nearly collapsed after being liberalized, Italy is a mess after continued liberalizations policies.

Healthcare is one issue. Industry and banks are another issue.

Take British Steel and British Leyland while they where nationalized. Look at the failure of the Soviet economy. Look at the failure of Dirigisme under François Mitterrand. Look at the rise of the Chinese market economy.

Socialism might, just might work in some situations for a limited amount of time, and it has helped temper some aspects of capitalism, but in the long run it creates 20 problems for every solution.

In fact, from a historical perspective it's funny. All the EU-15 countries suffered heavily under WW II. They had to be released from Germany and then pay their dues, especially Germany and others. We gained aid, yes, but that's not the same as the USA, that was never attacked. Germany has had to deal with problems with re-integrating Eastern Germany. Belgium had to deal with Wallonia. GB had to deal with post-colonial stress. Portugal, Ireland and others were all in economic an economic crisis. Italy still has to deal with South Italy.

We had to siphon off large precentages of our GNP to you guys to keep the Maoists from getting too upidy in Paris, or helping rig elections in Latin America. We faught the Cold War.

In fact, considering that Europe is a decrepit old nation and the USA is or was a young blooming one, I think the fact that both have more-or-less equal economies at the moment (in size, not in growth rate; one is endemic, the other is not) shows that the EU under socialist rule has been under good management, whereas the USA has been under constant mismanagement

Que? This makes little sense to me. The EU's population is a lot larger then ours, and it was the center of the world economy for 500 years. We've beaten you in 50.

Did you even pay attention during the elections? Labour won, but shrunk. The most left party, the Liberal Democrats, had the biggest growth rate of all British parties, because it's either them or Tories or Tories-Redux AKA New Labour. I know you love Blair, but the British people don't.

Yet the Liberal Democrats still lost, they are still the smallest, and the Tories came close to winning. And the Liberal Democrats are still not the Labour Party of 1981.

Strange how facts seem to support my bias, though. Eurosocialism is not the same as American socialism, when will you learn this? What is good for the States is not good for us, and vice versa.

I refuse to believe that the form of Capitalism that now dominates every developed nation outside of Europe simply cannot work in Europe or better the European economy. It has been everywhere else, it will be in Europe, mark my words. Even now European companies are being critiscized for being too 'American' or Anglo.

 

[Brother None]

Fascism is the key here. They are democratic parties that don't believe in racial superiorty or anything like that.

Nor was I saying they did. You assumed as much by me placing them on the extreme right-wing. That's because right wing only stretches so far. They don't fit on the center or the left of the right-wing, so they have to go to the right or "extreme" side of the right wing.

Frankly, I think you are thinking way too black and white here. Right and left are meaningless titles these days in which white supremicists can give money to the Nation of Islam because they share the same goals, when French Leninists, French Fascists and French Islamafundies join hands and sing protests against the EU.

Oh, nonsense, right and left remain as political identity markers for political parties. Individual actions have nothing to do with it. The PvdA supporting the governmental parties in their EU Constitution campaign doesn't make the PvdA a right-wing party. Co-operating between left and right wherever it's convenient has always existed, that doesn't bring them any closer on general philosophy.

Yet people come from all over the world for medical care here because of the poor quality of many socialized health care systems. See;Quebec.

USA's healthcare system has problems, yes, but it can maintain itself.

That's great. So your argument in favour of the US medical care system is that "rich people from other countries come to be treated by our expensive medical staff". Well, that's just great.

The price-tag of health care on average in the USA is 2x as expensive as that of the Netherlands, while 40 million people remain uninsured. I really, really wouldn't care about foreignors coming to benifit of our system with their untold riches if I have to pay two times as much as those foreignors do and have to live with many of my fellow citizens getting no basic care because of lack of insurance.

I posted an article not a month ago on this exact subject.

That article was analysed and shred to bits in detail. For Christ's sake, man, it was a NY Times article, I can't believe your citing it as credible evidence.

I don't really trust HDI or defenitions of highest quality of life anywhoo.

Yeah, I guess you wouldn't, seeing as it doesn't rank the USA as number one. You'd rather us rediculous things like GDP per capita or GDP real growth rate to measure how well a country is doing.

Maybe that's where the problem lies. I think it's rediculous to measure a country's wealth by GDP per capita rather than quality of life of its citizens, you don't.

Australia and Canada.

Australia has a social democratic history. Canada is more socialist than the USA, I think.

But hell, even the USA has many welfare state tendencies, it's kind of odd how we're almost talking in black and white. There is no non-welfare state in the developed world.

Healthcare is one issue. Industry and banks are another issue.

Take British Steel and British Leyland while they where nationalized. Look at the failure of the Soviet economy. Look at the failure of Dirigisme under François Mitterrand. Look at the rise of the Chinese market economy.

Socialism might, just might work in some situations for a limited amount of time, and it has helped temper some aspects of capitalism, but in the long run it creates 20 problems for every solution.

Your argument is a non-argument, don't try to side-skip the subject at hand.

"Healthcare is one issue. Industry and banks are another issue." is a nice remark, but it doesn't change anything about my argument. Quality of all these services have in fact decreased in those countries under liberalization and have generally become a lot more expensive as well.

And I stated before that France thrived economically under dirigism and is now collapsing under Chirac's liberalizations. You never replied to that.

You do realise the USA is both the inventor of and a sustainer of the welfare state, right? It's odd how much you fight against us having a more expanded welfare state. I'll agree that government dabbing in some matters is bad, the pure-bussiness thinks like banks, etc. But that was never my point, you're just trying to derail.

Communism, however, is something completely different from social democracy. Comparing that would be like me comparing the USA to the nazis. Funny, but not really fair. Communism excludes capitalism, social democracy includes but limits capitalism, nobody actually lets capitalism go its own free way (name one country that lets capitalism go unchecked)

We had to siphon off large precentages of our GNP to you guys to keep the Maoists from getting too upidy in Paris, or helping rig elections in Latin America. We faught the Cold War.

Oh, yeah, I bet that was REAL expensive.

Que? This makes little sense to me. The EU's population is a lot larger then ours, and it was the center of the world economy for 500 years. We've beaten you in 50.

Not really accurate. The USA didn't "beat us in 50 years". You grew along with us during the days of colonialism. You profited of slave trade as well as the booming international trade in goods as much as Europe did, which is what enabled the USA to grow and expand at the rate it did. You've profited from the international situation as much as any of us. You're not fucking Africa, man.

That wasn't my point, though, my point was that Europe as a whole and the EU has had a lot more internal strife and expensive colonial matters to take care off than the USA, which grew rich on the back of the world with the strong dollar ruling the market. Not to mention how the common market is not that old and our division has always been a block on our growth, especially once we lacked the additional size of the colonies. I find it rather impressive that the EU is still struggling upwards, I think it's a sign of pretty decent management, though not market-directed management.

Yet the Liberal Democrats still lost, they are still the smallest, and the Tories came close to winning. And the Liberal Democrats are still not the Labour Party of 1981.

Here's what dual-party democracy does to your mind, you do not understand signals from democratic elections.

Losing does not equate that everything remains the same. Just because the numbers are still 1, 2 and 3 Labour, Tories and Lib Dems doesn't mean everything is the same. I know you have an untrained mind to comprehend this, being used to "winning = winning losing = losing" from the 2-party system, but in a multiple-party system, even a 3-party one, an increase in votes means you've won, a decrease of votes means you've lost, even if on a decrease you win the elections. You won the elections, yes, but you're losing the faith of the people, it's a sign your party is losing popularity for whatever reason.

Also, the Tories only grew in seats, hardly in votes, Lib Dem grew a lot in votes, less in seats. It's the retarded system GB shares with you people that did that.

I already stated Old Labour had its own problems OTHER than being left. The UK is not continental Europe, but I don't think this kind of right-wing government suits them either, which is why the Liberal Democrats are gaining grounds. Political developments tend to go rather slow on the Anglo-American retarded political system, though.

I refuse to believe that the form of Capitalism that now dominates every developed nation outside of Europe simply cannot work in Europe or better the European economy. It has been everywhere else, it will be in Europe, mark my words. Even now European companies are being critiscized for being too 'American' or Anglo.

Every developed nation outside Europe?! OH MY GOD! THAT'S SO MANY! That's...the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, South-Korea...uhm...and that's it.

"Everywhere else" indeed. Stop the bullshit, man, America's economic policies aren't half as popular as you wish them to be and the strange libertartianism (are you honestly against the welfare state, 'cause you've pretty much stated as much) that you promote certainly isn't very popular. Or do you honestly believe the political systems of Russia and China are closer to that of the USA than to that of the EU? Heh.

Nobody is against capitalism here, but almost all of Europe consists of Social-Democrat or Christian Social-Democrat nations. I know you like to dream about how great the US is, but even *if* the system of the US is suited perfectly to our different way of thinking, do you honestly think the transition could be made painlessely or would be smart to make right now? We've seen how much a country is hurt by trying to liberalize (France, the Netherlands, GB).

And again, I don't care about economic increase if the price is too high. You don't seem to understand that this is the general opinion of the EU citizenry, even if the politicians in Brussels are trying harder and harder to push through horrible liberalizations (like the hated Bolkenstein-proposal)

 

[John Uskglass]

That's great. So your argument in favour of the US medical care system is that "rich people from other countries come to be treated by our expensive medical staff". Well, that's just great.

The price-tag of health care on average in the USA is 2x as expensive as that of the Netherlands, while 40 million people remain uninsured. I really, really wouldn't care about foreignors coming to benifit of our system with their untold riches if I have to pay two times as much as those foreignors do and have to live with many of my fellow citizens getting no basic care because of lack of insurance.

US medical system has problems. I don't know what to do with them. I don't think nationalizing it is the key, as Quebec has destroyed it's own medical care system. Fair enough?

Yeah, I guess you wouldn't, seeing as it doesn't rank the USA as number one. You'd rather us rediculous things like GDP per capita or GDP real growth rate to measure how well a country is doing.

USA's a country of 280 million people. The Netherlands has 16 million.

Maybe that's where the problem lies. I think it's rediculous to measure a country's wealth by GDP per capita rather than quality of life of its citizens, you don't.

Only by GDP capita? Yes. By GDP Capita, an okay HDI and a good GDP growth rate? Fine.

Australia has a social democratic history. Canada is more socialist than the USA, I think.

Haha. Quebec, maybe, but Quebec is not Canada, and the Socialist tradition has made a laughing stock of Quebec and turned Quebec into one of the poorest Canadian provines from being the richest.

Only about 1/3 of the smallest of the three major parties of Australia can be described as anywhere near Socialist. And even then, it's not even socialist in the traditional sense. The ALP has more in common with the Democrats then most Socialist Parties.

And I stated before that France thrived economically under dirigism and is now collapsing under Chirac's liberalizations. You never replied to that.

Wow, that's bullshit, the French economy started collapsing under Mitterrand, I'm surprised your dislike of liberalization would blind you to that obvious fact.

You do realise the USA is both the inventor of and a sustainer of the welfare state, right? It's odd how much you fight against us having a more expanded welfare state. I'll agree that government dabbing in some matters is bad, the pure-bussiness thinks like banks, etc. But that was never my point, you're just trying to derail.

We are'nt arguing as total opposites here. I'm not an Anarchist or an extreme Libertarian, thus I believe in some manner of welfare state, but at the same time think Europe is a bit Red to be functional.

Communism, however, is something completely different from social democracy. Comparing that would be like me comparing the USA to the nazis. Funny, but not really fair. Communism excludes capitalism, social democracy includes but limits capitalism, nobody actually lets capitalism go its own free way (name one country that lets capitalism go unchecked)

Nazis where Socialists, not Capitalists, thus the comparison is more apt then that.

Oh, yeah, I bet that was REAL expensive.

You know, you get any worse at remembering recent history, I'd suggest you start tatooing things like MARSHALL PROGRAM and STAR WARS, BRINKMANSHIP, SUSTAINING WEST BERLIN on your chest, Memento style. It would probably help.

Those things where not cheap.

Not really accurate. The USA didn't "beat us in 50 years". You grew along with us during the days of colonialism. You profited of slave trade as well as the booming international trade in goods as much as Europe did, which is what enabled the USA to grow and expand at the rate it did. You've profited from the international situation as much as any of us. You're not fucking Africa, man.

Fair enough. But in 1910 we where probably the third or fourth most powerful industrial nation in the world, without an army of note. By 1950 we owned half the world's wealth and had the best armed services in the world.

but in a multiple-party system, even a 3-party one, an increase in votes means you've won, a decrease of votes means you've lost, even if on a decrease you win the elections.

Then the Tories won.

Party Seats Gains Losses Net Gain/Loss Seats % Votes % Votes +/-
Labour 356 0 47 -47 55.2 35.2 9,556,183 -5.5%
Conservative 197 36 3 +33 30.5 32.3 8,772,598 +0.6%
Liberal Democrats 62 16 5 +11 9.6 22.0 5,982,045 +3.7%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005#Overall_results

Every developed nation outside Europe?! OH MY GOD! THAT'S SO MANY! That's...the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, South-Korea...uhm...and that's it.

New Zeeland, Mexico, Austria (mostly), Singapore.

Also, most of the really quickly developing nations (Turkey, Thailand, China, Vietnam, India) have a pretty weak Socialist tradition (with the exception of Turkey, but the AKP has killed Socialism there).

And again, I don't care about economic increase if the price is too high. You don't seem to understand that this is the general opinion of the EU citizenry, even if the politicians in Brussels are trying harder and harder to push through horrible liberalizations (like the hated Bolkenstein-proposal)

You...don't care...about...your...own...economy?

Uh...what?

 

[Brother None]

US medical system has problems. I don't know what to do with them. I don't think nationalizing it is the key, as Quebec has destroyed it's own medical care system. Fair enough?

Now you misunderstood me again!

I don't believe in a superiority of one system of another. I don't *want* the US health care system to be nationalized, that would destroy it, just the same liberalization would destroy our health care system. Why? That comes from a distinct interaction of what people want and expect from the system, what spirit lies in the system and the tradition behind it.

USA's a country of 280 million people. The Netherlands has 16 million.

Yes. So?

Haha. Quebec, maybe, but Quebec is not Canada, and the Socialist tradition has made a laughing stock of Quebec and turned Quebec into one of the poorest Canadian provines from being the richest.

Only about 1/3 of the smallest of the three major parties of Australia can be described as anywhere near Socialist. And even then, it's not even socialist in the traditional sense. The ALP has more in common with the Democrats then most Socialist Parties.

Yeah, you're right, impulse reply there.

That makes 5 out of 7 above the USA social demcratic countries and 2...not.

I think we'll see different numbers next time around. I'll be surprised if the Netherlands doesn't do a dive because of recent liberalizations.

Wow, that's bullshit, the French economy started collapsing under Mitterrand, I'm surprised your dislike of liberalization would blind you to that obvious fact.

During the 1945-1975 period, France experienced unprecedented economic growth (4.5% on average) and a demographic boom, leading to the coinage of the term Trente Glorieuses ("Thirty Glorious [years]").

Mitterand took Dirigism from its own forms into expanded state control, though.

What you need to finally try to understand, though, is that dirigism and welfarism are not synonyms. I've seen you argue against the welfare state using dirigism before, as if dirigism is some kind of necessary part of the welfare state.

I don't want dirigism either, I don't want state control. Most European countries don't, but we do like our welfare states.

You know, you get any worse at remembering recent history, I'd suggest you start tatooing things like MARSHALL PROGRAM and STAR WARS, BRINKMANSHIP, SUSTAINING WEST BERLIN on your chest, Memento style. It would probably help.

Those things where not cheap.

The thing that made me reply to sarcastically was the fact that you spoke of it as a total necessity. The USA is as much responsible for the Arms Race as the USSR. There's no reason to consider the arms race as a historic necessity, however, and you can't whine about it just because you started it.

And it's called the Marshall Plan, not program. Loans in the Marshall Plan non-withstanding, it was something you did for your own benifit, it was necessary, not for ours.

The difference here is also that the USA had expenditure without additional costs, whereas the EU had costs to block the incoming money, amongst which the Wall splitting us in two, having to pay to sustain American military bases, dictatorial problems in France and Spain, etc. etc.

I kind of drifed off, though, fact is we both had a lot of post-World War II problems and fact is I'm a bit surprised that you claim social democracy is unsustainable when it's what helped rebuild Western Europe. And Eastern Europe, even, but that's communism.

Then the Tories won.

Party Seats Gains Losses Net Gain/Loss Seats % Votes % Votes +/-
Labour 356 0 47 -47 55.2 35.2 9,556,183 -5.5%
Conservative 197 36 3 +33 30.5 32.3 8,772,598 +0.6%
Liberal Democrats 62 16 5 +11 9.6 22.0 5,982,045 +3.7%

Yip, Tories rode the high wave of civil unrest and gained something from it. Liberals Democrats gained a lot more, though, about 6 times as much as your numbers indicate, percentage-wise

Funny how +.6% means 33 seats for the Tories and +3.7% means +11 seats for the Liberal Democrats. Oh, funny anglo-american electoral system, what won't you do?

So yes, the Tories won, only less so than the Liberal Democrats.

New Zeeland, Mexico, Austria (mostly), Singapore.

Also, most of the really quickly developing nations (Turkey, Thailand, China, Vietnam, India) have a pretty weak Socialist tradition (with the exception of Turkey, but the AKP has killed Socialism there).

Austria is outside of Europe?

I'm not sure if I'd count Mexico as a developed nation yet.

And do you have ANY idea how funny you just were? "Also, most of the really quickly developing nations (Turkey, Thailand, China, Vietnam, India) have a pretty weak Socialist tradition"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Ok, let me try to explain this once more. The fact that China lets its market go freely has *nothing* to do with its socialist tendencies. Social Democrats *can* let the market go free. The Scandinavian countries as well as the Benelux countries never believed too much in market control and have always had an amount of liberalization.

Socialism consists of the state using tax dollars to take care of the needy. On that basis I think it'll be rather hard to say China and Vietnam have a weak socialist tradition.

You...don't care...about...your...own...economy?

Uh...what?

Ehehehe. Your shock about this shows exactly why you are completely inable to grasp why we want to be socialist.

No, I don't care about my economy. I wouldn't consider it a problem if it doesn't grow at explosive rates to keep up with the rest of the world. I would consider it a problem if our welfare state has to suffer to make the economy grow.

 

[John Uskglass]

No, I don't care about my economy. I wouldn't consider it a problem if it doesn't grow at explosive rates to keep up with the rest of the world. I would consider it a problem if our welfare state has to suffer to make the economy grow.

I guess I can understand that. But I hope you understand why we need to be on top in terms of Economy; we exist so that peaceful areas like your own can continue to be peacful and democratic, without fear of a reincarnated Islamic Calpihate, the USSR or the PRC.

I'm gonna quote Team America: World Police on this issue.

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

Socialism consists of the state using tax dollars to take care of the needy. On that basis I think it'll be rather hard to say China and Vietnam have a weak socialist tradition.

Okay, that was pretty stupid of me, but Den Xiaoping's China and his succesor's China is pretty close to the Chicago school, or at least closer to it then say France's socialism.

Austria is outside of Europe?

Economically it's closer to America in some ways.

So yes, the Tories won, only less so than the Liberal Democrats.

I'll grant you that.

I kind of drifed off, though, fact is we both had a lot of post-World War II problems and fact is I'm a bit surprised that you claim social democracy is unsustainable when it's what helped rebuild Western Europe

Not sustainible through the problems Europe is facing, like collapsing birth rates and immigration issues.

The thing that made me reply to sarcastically was the fact that you spoke of it as a total necessity. The USA is as much responsible for the Arms Race as the USSR. There's no reason to consider the arms race as a historic necessity, however, and you can't whine about it just because you started it.

Getting rid of the USSR was historical necessity. Two superpower structure is never stable, especially when one is a failing totalitarian regiem with a beef against the entire world.

I don't want dirigism either, I don't want state control. Most European countries don't, but we do like our welfare states.

I guess I can understand that. Amercans like a lot of aspects of the Welfare State, we just like to keep it trim.

 

[Brother None]

I'm gonna quote Team America: World Police on this issue.

Team America was a funny film, but its message sucked ass. It tried to insult and at the same time please everyone, there was no edge, nothing new or original, just apologism for everyone. Funny, yes, but stupid. South Park had a lot more meaning, at least for Americans.

Okay, that was pretty stupid of me, but Den Xiaoping's China and his succesor's China is pretty close to the Chicago school, or at least closer to it then say France's socialism.

Probably, but that might also be one of the reasons China's enormous growth leaves most of the country unaffected and poor. It may be growing, but it's hardly a better place to live in than it was 50 years ago, for most people there.

Economically it's closer to America in some ways.

Still not outside Europe.

Not sustainible through the problems Europe is facing, like collapsing birth rates and immigration issues.

Both unrelated to the welfare state.

You know the country that's facing the biggest collapsing birth rate problem? Japan. It has no system whatsoever to catch the fact that it'll have the biggest wave worldwide of old people. Either they'll all have to commit harakiri or die.

Do you know the country that's facing the least collapsing birth rate problem? The Netherlands. Our country has always upheld a dual pension system, one through which the current generation pays for the older generation (barely sustainable), the other in which the current generation pays for the next, which means we have an ENORMOUS cash fund to take the heaviest blow of the Graying away

Too bad France and Germany will start printing money to take care of their problem, as they weren't so smart, meaning our money'll be devaluated, meaning we'll be fucked by them. Big surprise.

Immigration problems have little to do with socialism, though it depends which immigration problems you mean

Getting rid of the USSR was historical necessity. Two superpower structure is never stable, especially when one is a failing totalitarian regiem with a beef against the entire world.

I don't see how that is very different from the current state of the world. 'cept that now the failing totalitarian regime with a beef against the entire world is the USA.

Ehehehe, I kid, but it's funny how much that sentence applies to you guys.

 

[John Uskglass]

Team America was a funny film, but its message sucked ass. It tried to insult and at the same time please everyone, there was no edge, nothing new or original, just apologism for everyone. Funny, yes, but stupid.

Not really. It's purpose was a defense of American Interventionism; thus the importance fo the final Dicks-Pussies-Assholes speech. Dicks, American Interventionists, are needed to keep the Pussies, Europe and the Democrats, safe.

Probably, but that might also be one of the reasons China's enormous growth leaves most of the country unaffected and poor. It may be growing, but it's hardly a better place to live in than it was 50 years ago, for most people there.

Actually, that's not true. The Chinese boom is moving East every year, and the middle class-non exsistant 20 years ago-is now around 15% of the population. Though for the record, the world was SAFER with China under Mao. Of course, I would not wish Mao on the Euros, let alone the Chinese.

Still not outside Europe.

Physically no, mentally yes.

You know the country that's facing the biggest collapsing birth rate problem? Japan. It has no system whatsoever to catch the fact that it'll have the biggest wave worldwide of old people. Either they'll all have to commit harakiri or die.

Japan's also the biggest Neolibreal succes story under rocker/Prime Minister Koizumi.

Do you know the country that's facing the least collapsing birth rate problem? The Netherlands. Our country has always upheld a dual pension system, one through which the current generation pays for the older generation (barely sustainable), the other in which the current generation pays for the next, which means we have an ENORMOUS cash fund to take the heaviest blow of the Graying away

Genius. Damn. I wish we had that.

Immigration problems have little to do with socialism, though it depends which immigration problems you mean

Socialism seems to require a nation with a pretty strong work ethic, good education and a respect for universal human rights. Something a big immigrant group to Europe largely lacks...

Ehehehe, I kid, but it's funny how much that sentence applies to you guys.

Yeah. In some ways the US is probably more involved in creating Revolutions then the USSR during or after the Stalin administration. Only our revolutions tend to be nonviolent and democratic, not to mention cool and sponsored by hot Lebanese chicks.

 

[Brother None]

Not really. It's purpose was a defense of American Interventionism; thus the importance fo the final Dicks-Pussies-Assholes speech. Dicks, American Interventionists, are needed to keep the Pussies, Europe and the Democrats, safe.

Uhm, actually, he says dicks are needed to keep pussies safe, while pussies are needed to keep dicks in check.

As I said, defending everybody. I'm...kind of puzzled by your interpretation. Did you totally miss the "dick fuck when it's not appropriate"-bit? Hello, Iraq?

It's funny that you can actually call it defending American Interventionism when they blow up half of Paris at the start and destroy countless Egyptian monuments (all very close together for some reason)

Actually, that's not true. The Chinese boom is moving East every year, and the middle class-non exsistant 20 years ago-is now around 15% of the population.

Yeah, they couldn't prevent a middle class from existing. Duh gypsy.

Still a lot of poor folk, tho'

Physically no, mentally yes.

Whoa, there, hold your horses. You think it's mentally outside of Europe just because its capitalism resembled that of the USA? Excuse me, did you see it in Iraq? Is it not a part of the EU? It's a European state, for Chrissakes, historically one of the most important and tied very heavily with the other countries.

Japan's also the biggest Neolibreal succes story under rocker/Prime Minister Koizumi.

Will that help them when the wave of old people hits them? Will it help the old people? They have no system to catch it with.

Genius. Damn. I wish we had that.

And good for the economy too, as most of the money in the pension-pot consists of either government-obligations or stocks (kinda risky, but never failed)

I don't think the USA will need it nearly as badly as any European nation will, though. Sad thing is some nations know the Dutch system makes sense, but it's way too late to copy it, meaning the Dutch are still screwed

What you'll find interesting is that the AOW, people paying for the current old generation, is a governmental institution whereas the Pension Fund, the big money pot we have to save us from the Graying, is mostly a particular initiative with no governmental interference

Socialism seems to require a nation with a pretty strong work ethic, good education and a respect for universal human rights. Something a big immigrant group to Europe largely lacks...

That's a problem of integration more than immigration.

And remember that this is also a new problem. The Netherlands, for instance, invited a lot of immigrants to fill up holes in the market when our economy thrived under socialism in the 70's (before it all started collapsing in the early 80's).

I don't know, that is a problem, but I'm not so sure if it's really a socialist one.

Yeah. In some ways the US is probably more involved in creating Revolutions then the USSR during or after the Stalin administration. Only our revolutions tend to be nonviolent and democratic, not to mention cool and sponsored by hot Lebanese chicks.

I'll vote for the hot Lebanese chicks

You still haven't commented on the USA being *against* the revolution in Uzbekistan, by the way. Also hot chicks, though a bit too Asian for me.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

John, in case you weren't aware, it was the Democratic Party that was generally considered the "war" party and the Republicans the isolationists up until about 20 years ago. Your analogy is a bit flawed.