Bravo, rm6, bravo! Folks like madkow make it seem as if it's an either/or choice for socialism or capitalism, but of course reality is hardly ever a simple choice between two options.

I remember reading Ayn Rand in high school & recognizing back then that her capitalistic model would be no better than the communist model she had fled. Capitalism must have a series of checks & balances to protect the consumer & insulate the government from illegitimate interference. Unfortunately, some folks never got past Rand's imperfect fantasies.

Nobody is "glorifying socialism" around here, and neither are any of the presidential candidates. Those kind of fear buzzwords work well on a bumper sticker, but not so well when it comes to the issues.

From the way Awsmom was talking, it sounded like she thinks that total Socialism is ideal, like China or South Korea are places to aspire to.  It seems like this election (as concerns Hillary) is being based on just how much socialism we should have in our economy.  Many people think we have too little.  I think we have too much- though I would never argue that some controls are necessary.  But I suppose you could label me a "fiscal conservative" (not that I agree with conservatives in certain other areas).

Oohchild- I'm afraid I will never be able to write anything you won't consider to contain "fear buzzwords".  I do think that capitalism and socialism work on a scale, not as an either/or.  I also think that socialist economies can somewhat function, as apparent by one of our greatest allies, Britain.  Their economy works, kind of, in a somewhat capitalist manner, but I really wouldn't want it for us.  It's the same with nominally communist China, who realized that in order to make money, you need to practice a little capitalism. 

Just as some people never got past Rand's fantasies, others have never gotten past Marx and Engel's fantasies.  Or should I not mention their names?  Are those considered "fear buzzwords" too?

I think that with time, madkow, you'll be able to move away from the easily embraced buzzwords that the neocons are so fond of throwing about. As you get older, things will come into perspective for you & you'll be able to see the gradations present in politics & the economy, as just two examples.

Let's take your example of the UK. What is the basis of your belief that Britain is a socialist country, or that their economy is socialistic in nature? Have you traveled there, or have you studied their economy in school, or are you just using the neocons' line that Great Britain is socialist?

Socialized, government controlled medicine is a perennial favorite of the leftist social engineers in this country. Hillary Clinton has become most closely associated with that goal as a result of her disastrous nationalized health care scheme in 1993, and she has long touted Britain's National Health Service with envy. Former candidate Bill Bradley made nationalized health care a major plank of his failed campaign, and candidate Al Gore has cited Canada's health care system as a model to be emulated.

Now from Canada comes a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that there are long waiting lists for surgical and diagnostic procedures (one report concludes that the median patient has to wait 70% longer than is medically reasonable); that some procedures, routine in the United States, are unavailable in Canada; that technical devices such as CT scanners and MRI machines are scarce; that cost controls on pharmaceuticals have actually led to deaths from the lack of available medicines; and most astonishing of all, in this era of increasing general world-wide health and lengthening life spans, Canadian life expectancy is actually declining.

From Britain's National Health Service comes a report that perhaps one third of all terminally ill cancer patients are dying only because of delays in treatment or misdiagnoses. According to the London Times, "long delays between appointments were often blamed for a time lag when previously treatable cancers grew incurable". A leading British cancer specialist was quoted "It costs nothing to ensure that patients see a doctor within two weeks, as the government has insisted, but what is the point if they then have to wait about three months for treatment with a worn-out radiotherapy machine?"

Think that the Hillary Clinton nationalized health care schemers in this country will learn anything? Don't bet on it.

http://www.tysknews.com/Dep...

Oohchild, I can't even argue with you.  Being that I am young and have no perspective, no opinion worth saying, and am easily misled by neocons (is that a "fear buzzword" I hear?), everything I say is 100% wrong.  So... nevermind.  I knew better than to argue with you the first time, I just couldn't help myself.  It won't happen again.

Don't let oohchild throw you madkow, just because she disagrees with you, doesn't mean that you are wrong.

C'mon madkow, you know I think you're a sharp gal, so playing the martyr card doesn't cut it with me. Go ahead and answer my questions. Tell me how you came to the belief that Great Britain is a socialistic country. Is that based on their use of the free-market system, or is it based on your understanding of their health care? Or is it something else, like maybe their tax rate? I'd really like to understand how you came to that conclusion.

All right, so I was a little butt hurt for a while- no fair using age against me!  But I'm over it now and my computer is finally working again (yay!).  I had a problem with Flash, which was easily solved, but I still have a problem with svchost :(

Ok, UK isn't purely socialist, but like you said, it's on a scale- and the UK definitely goes more toward Socialism.  Their Prime Minister is Gordon Brown, who is from the Labour Party (self-described as "a democratic socialist party"), and who sums up his beliefs as "Every child should have the best start in life, that everybody should have the chance of a job, that nobody should be brought up suffering in poverty."  (Noble aspirations, but it has to be balanced with a desire for rewards based on achievement, not need.)

Looking at their allocation of resources in their 2004 Spending Review (the most recent I found), two of the four top priorities are (1) deliver world-class public services that enhance opportunity for all and (2) strengthen communities and build a fairer society.  Also, if you look at the list of political parties, many of them are socialist (although some seem to dilute it with the term "decentralised socialism").  Looking at their expenditures, the top expenditure is for Social Protection (aka Welfare) at 28%, then 17% for Health, and 13% for Education.  At least their tax rates seem to be somewhat fair.  And their websites are excellent compared to any government websites here :)

And even if you don't consider this valid proof of socialism, my example of China still stands...  unless you need evidence that China is Communist but embracing Capitalism.

Okay, so we agree that the UK isn't a socialist country, but base their economy on a free market system, just as we do here. Remember, Gordon Brown is elected to his position similar to our President. The party affiliation doesn't dictate whether a country is more capitalistic or socialistic; otherwise, would you have considered them to be a capitalistic-leaning country up to 1997?

When I think of socialistic countries, places like Venezuela come to mind. Since I've visited many places in the UK over the years, I've had a chance to see first-hand how the country operates. Believe me, if you went over there (if you haven't) you'd be hard-pressd to call it a socialist country.

This is a good example of how folks in this country don't even understand the rest of the world. They hear on the news someone referring to Great Britain's "socialistic" nature or government, & they automatically assume that's an evil thing; we've been programmed to respond to buzzwords like "socialist" & "communist" like Pavlov's dog. We need to dig a bit further for the truth.

Thanks for looking deeper, madkow. I'm proud of you.

Party affiliation of the President/Prime Minister can certainly have a lot to do with the capitalistic/socialistic workings of the economy.  If a Republican is elected here, and chooses to say, deregulate energy, that moves us in a more capitalist direction.  Versus a Democrat opting to assume state control of utilities, which would move us in a more socialist direction.  (Not to say that Republicans are all doing capitalist things or that all Democrats are doing socialist things, mind you; it was just an example.)  If a majority of the parties in the UK are socialist, and a majority of the people belong to those parties, then the country should be glad to lean in a socialist direction.  I haven't been to the UK though, or any other country for that matter, so what do I know?

I agree that Venezuela is heavily socialist, although with the recent defeat of Chavez's referendums, it seems a lot of people aren't so happy with such an extreme slant.

I wouldn't say I have a Pavlovian response to "socialism" and "communism" per se.  I've done my own informal studies of them and I really don't think that they are the best form of economy or government.  I mean, when you have Mao conducting his great Communist revolution, which leads to the death of around 30-70 million people, I'd say something is not right with the policy.  I never took an economy class, but I did study 3rd and 4th world nations/peoples, as well as political science, and socialism and communism were mandatory subjects with which I needed to be familiar.  You can dig as deep as you want, but no matter how far you go, they're still not good.

On the brighter side, I am thinking of training my son to fall asleep at the sound of a bell... think it'll work?  lol!!