And thus go 'socialised' countries. Over the cliff...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41723432/ns … _business/
But aren't they doing what you are proposing for America?
They are saying they are paying too much tax and protesting.
I smell hypocrisy.
I know that Greece was doing OK until it embraced capitalism and got in too deep with the big banks.
More civility from you I see!
Wow! That's going to be one huge default for the other European countries who lent them a lot of money.
Are there any countries in the world that Americans don't consider socialised? Other than their own.
Fortunately, the hubbers who are constantly crying "socialism" here on these forums are not representative of the majority of Americans.
Just had to throw that in there.
I am the dead center of Americanism. The Constitution.
LOLOLOL! A Colbert moment if I ever saw one.
Hehe, good news! I don't doubt that people who call themselves "we hold these truths" might be bigger "patriots" than most!
From that article - at the very end.
"Greeks, when they see that the law is being applied in general, they will implement it too," ...
"But when it isn't being applied to some, such as when there are ministers who have been stealing, ... Well, if the laws aren't implemented at the top, others won't implement them."
I think a lot of countries can relate to that problem. Apply laws equally, or else you get a mess like this.
Hey, less of the brother bit!
I don't have to resort to petty insults to uphold my corner.
John has no idea what he's talking about. The Greek debt problem is very straightforward and the history is simple to understand.
Greece joined the EU some time back, and one of the things that happened, was that Greece had access to the ability to borrow money at very low rates, as part of the EU's common economic block. Greece used this money for immense spending, and to create many new giveaway programs, spending programs and social support programs.
But it didn't build any economic base to pay for it. So, when the easy money ran out, because Greece's debt is so large, in comparison to it's miniscule wealth creation, the country was in the position of either defaulting on debt, or defaulting on internal payments.
So, the EU came to their 'rescue' by lending them MORE money, putting them in debt deeper. Obviously, this means they MUST cut spending. Greece can't be taxed any more than it is. Besides, Greece's taxation had become a joke, with the industry of tax avoidance having become a national pastime.
The problem lies, in that the considerable majority of Greeks, in some way, depend on government spending for their lifestyle. "Austerity" (just spending only what they have, is austerity to them) means reduced benefits and handouts. It's just simple math.
BTW, Victor Davis Hansen wrote a wonderful article about this most of a year ago, explaining the historical roots and the likely results. He lives there part time. It's all going straight over the cliff, just as he hinted he expected them to do.
John's clueless. He thinks this has something to do with "capitalism". Nope, it's all about socialism and its results. Period.
The problem in Greece is not necessarily that the Greeks depended too much on government subsidies, it is that they never wanted to PAY for them through taxes.
I don't care how you wish to characterize it. They built their politics on borrowed money, and lifestyle on distributed borrowed wealth. Taxation is not an "unlimited" thing. You can tax only up to a certain level, and then humans begin to change behavior to avoid it. Keep raising it and making it more punitive, and eventually, they just break the law, or act in ways to simply remove themselves from the system.
Government can only be funded by a small portion of the wealth created in your country. If that amount created is small, then no level of taxation will create large amounts of money to spend on "services".
Wow, he managed a whole post without mentioning socialism and instead noticed that they had been playing with capitalism!
Understood, but if you want a society based on distributed wealth, then you have to be willing to have the wealth distributed.
It was never the case in Greece that the levels of taxation were too high to begin with... the issue has always been that tax avoidance is a common national characteristic.
You can't have it both ways.. services with no one paying for it.
You also missed the failure to address the creation of wealth. That is done by the private sector only. Greece did not create an environment conducive to it, nor did the incentives to do so exist adequately for it to done. Again, I point you to the "small portion of created wealth" that can be taxed for government (consumption) services.
I'm not trying to comment on any cultural "tax avoidance" habits or behavior, but then, anyone who expected the culture to change was lying to themselves. It all boils down to extreme irresponsibility on the part of government and leadership, who set themselves up as the major factor of economic activity. ( socialism)
Still avoiding putting your incisive analytical mind to the Eire question, or does that not count because they aren't socialist?
Same problem as Greece. Duhhh. Are you wholesale blind, or what? None of this is complicated or difficult in ANY way. In EVERY case, it is a matter of socialist policies causing overspending and overtaxation and eventual crushing debt.
Ah, now we get socialist policies do we?
What part of socialism was responsible for the collapse of banking and the need for Eire to get itself in hock bailing them out?
Wow, you really don't know, do you? Here I thought you were playing dunce, just be a smartass.
Conveying it to you in the space of a posting here is not possible.
Let's just say that the wisdom of allowing a central bank or two, to be such an integral part of your country that should it fail... Your country is in jeapardy.. Is a matter of economic engineering by powers that be. This is NOT capitalism, as capitalism inherently doesn't do this. There is no "too big to fail" in capitalism, but you'd have to understand the nature of business and free enterprise to grasp it.
The government was at fault.. but as Greece is a democracy, the fault lies with the people themselves.
Many nations have levels of socialism.. some have more programs than others. Aside from the philosophical question of whether a government has the right to tax and create social programs, I think you can have social programs in certain sectors that are funding with taxpayers dollars without going into financial ruin... or kill the goose (private enterprise) that lays the egg
In theory, you can. But greed for votes always trumps responsibility when there is no limit on power and money, and it is a slope downhill that always accelerates until the bottom is hit.
This is why much of the EU has an economic history of constantly swerving back and forth... growth of entitlements, a period of stasis, and then economic crisis, at which "austerity" happens, recovery is tried, and then it repeats itself.
Some just live in a constant state of economic malaise, but the subjects either don't know better, or are just too apathetic to do anything.
I'm getting a little fed up with your petty insults.
There is nothing in your treatise to prove that what has happened in Greece is anything to do with socialism.
How can you blame socialism for the similar events in none socialist Eire?
Oh, go blow it out your ear. Youv'e been entirely disrespectful for every post I've read from you. Your silly word games and refusal to behave like a civilized human. All you do is follow me around and yell that socialism isn't redistribution by government, yet no definition of socialism exists that isn't based entirely on centralized distribution or assignment, by authority.
You rail against capitalism, which is nothing more than the ability to own and use property, which means you don't believe in private ownership, which means you're for 100% government dependency and control. Period.
Oh yes, caught me out with my constant response of clueless to your posts.
I'll remind you that my postings were perfectly polite until you accused me of dishonesty and could only defend the accusation by saying that it was because I disagreed with you!
You jump to some pretty massive conclusions backed only by your lack of understanding.
OF COURSE YOU'RE DISHONEST. You're here wailing that all these countries with socialist policies are not failing because of those overspending socialist policies...
Either you're a dunce, or you're dishonest. There's no other way around it.
It ill behoves me to attempt to debate with somebody with such a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language.
By the same token then, you are either a dunce or dishonest.
Sorry, but you can't have it any other way.
You see, here's the part where you get insulting. You know, the "he doesn't know english" or "he doesn't know socialism" or "he doen'st know capitalism". But you're never willing to say what it is, and open YOUR thoughts to critique, just hand it out.
That's a typical leftist and follower mentality.
Well I defend my claim that anybody who will call a disagreement a lie or dishonesty does not understand English usage!
You could say that you disagree with me, even that you disagree with my barking mad ideas, but to accuse me of dishonesty is not on.
Notice that whatever you level at me you can't accuse me of calling you dishonest or a liar, that's because I can believe that though I think your beliefs are misplaced I quite accept that they are firmly and honestly held beliefs.
I have said and you've agreed that it is pointless telling you my view of socialism because you've said that you will take no notice of it because you know it all.
John, it is your lack of understanding! history has shown socialism doesn't work. what part of that is so hard to grasp? Greece is going down because of socialism....Period. The united states was built on capitalism and once we started slowly doing socialist things we started our downfall. I believe whom ever likes socialism should move to Greece or Spain or any other socialist country. why should the US change for people with their hands out all the time?
And when has socialism ever been tried?
We are not a socialist country (the UK) but have several socialist policies in force and they do us no harm whatsoever.
We have problems at the moment but these are not down to socialism, rather from the global banking crash and the war in Afghanistan.
"they do us no harm, whatsoever".
Ok, this time it's not said in jest, in anger, or mocking. It's said with a stunned, saddened, and sorrowful tone.
So, what harm have they done us then?
I'm afraid that I don't like to resort to slagging words, but you are actually clueless if you believe that you have a greater understanding of the situation in the UK than somebody who actually lives here!
Tell me, what industries produce wealth for the UK? What happened to the British automobile industry? Aeronautics? ( you know, building private airplanes?)
What happened to the major producers of wealth in the UK? They went broke. Americans own Jaguar, for instance.
When was the last british generation that believed they could exist without benefits and handouts from the government?
What has happened each time the Pound has been devalued, in an attempt to keep the government afloat?
Why is the NHS unable to provide adequate care, with 60 to 70 percent of Brits believing it needs serious reform? Better than the inverse of Americans, close to the mid 80's loved theirs.
When was the last time rolling blackouts occurred due to a power shortage?
Why do you pay enormous taxes on a gallon of gas?
Why do you pay a license, just to watch tv?
Why does your government pay to produce media, most of which is not worth a tiny fraction of it's cost?
What's the unemployment rate for those 18 to 28?
Haven't the US government just bailed out GM? Jaguar is not owned by Americans, it's owned by Tata, bought in a move part-sponsored by the Indian govt.
The UK is now almost an entirely service industry, banking contributes a huge percentage. We do very well out of this. We have the 6th largest economy in the world in a country of 50 million. Rolls Royce build around 50,000 aircraft engines a year.
The UK currency has depreciated far less than the USD in the past ten years.
The UK has a nationalised health service, it depends on who's poll you pick. It's difficult to make comparisons across health services. I think this is a far better state of affairs than the american system; you're in the proces of bringing your health system in line with the rest of the western world as we speak.
We haven't had rolling blackouts since WW2. We pay a licence fee so we don't have to watch Fox news and so that we can have the BBC. I'm happy to pay it.
UK unemployment rate stands at around 7.8%, US unemployment is around 10%.
What say you?
LOL, keep telling yourself that.
An economy based on service industries.
And someone told you this was good?
Yes, our beloved extreme right wing leader told us that and for once I'm in total agreement with you.
But I've just proved that what you'd written was utter crap, and that's your response.
Why the obscession with 18-24 year old unemployment? Why not the whole lot? Oh, because that's the only catergory you're ahead in?! Right. The USA has 10.3% unemployment compared the the UK's 7.8%.
You'd better get used to a service economy because you wont be out-competing China, India and Indonesia for long! And you'd better get used to the govt bailing your industries out at an increased frequency too. GM was just the first.
Actually this is already the case, the percentage shares of service and industry in the UK is almost identical to that of the USA.
I mean, feel free to contribute a few stats here if you want, or you can accept that I'm right and give up. The choice is yours!
I'll tell you what happened to British industry, Margaret Thatcher sold it off to the highest bidder and believe me, she'd make you look like a socialist lover!
The last generation that thought it could survive without hand outs from the government was during the socialist government of the 70s, before the right wing decided it needed unemployment to hold back pay.
There is no evidence that the NHS is unable to provide adequate care or that 60-70% believe it needs serious reform and few of those that do think it needs reform don't think that it needs privatising.
I would say that the last time rolling blackouts occurred due to power shortages was during Heaths tory government of the 70s.
We pay high taxes on petrol because, unlike the US, general taxation does not pay for all the roads.
We pay a TV license because we believe that some broadcasting should be free from commercial interference, unlike the US whee you demonstrate clearly the dangers of commerce being allowed to bias the news.
I can't do an exact figure for unemployed 18-28 year olds, we don't measure across that band but they seem similar, if a little lower than the US rate.
Your actual youth unemployment rate is several times ours.
If you really want to see something ugly, in that regard, check on France.
No, we are NOT moving our health care system your way, we're far smarter than that. Sure, we had some idiot Democrats trying, but it'll get undone. We have the world's BEST health care, period. By every true measure.
It's expensive. But so is everyone's. Ours is just more effective and more efficient.
You really think that Thatcher's privatization was bad? Ohhh... sheesh. Get clue, dude.
You have the worlds best health care for some, we have the worlds second best health care for all and at a much lower cost than you.
Yes, I do think Thatchers privatisation was bad, four million unemployed, many of them haven't worked since.
Sky rocketing of utilities costs AND we now pay France and Germany for them.
Public transport fares over three times what they were.
Our once world leading telecoms company is now no longer a world leader, just an off shoot of an American company!
And anyway, how do you get from pouring derision on to turning the country into a service depot to praise for the person who made it thus?
Strikes me as a bit inconsistent.
the war in afgan?????????????????? what does the UK have there??????? where are you spending money? God you are really clueless. I do not mean to disrespect you but sorry you need to take some history and economic classes before you say things.
We have 12000 military personnel in Afghanistan at the moment. The hit to the UK economy has been mainly down to the banking crisis because the UK economy relied so heavily on it.
Other countries with far more "socialist" attitudes to public speding have fared far better throught the global economic crisis: the Dutch, Germans and our Scandy cousins have done just well, but rely less heavily on banking. I wouldn't say that it had much to do with public spending, but if you've got evidence to the contrary....
Around £4.5 billion and that is since like 2003 and 12,000 isn't many to me. the US has a few hundred thousand and craft etc...
Still chicken feed when compared to the £193 billion benefits bill for the UK this year alone. A large proportion of which could go to improving the country instead of subsidising lazy b@stards lifestyles. That's more than is spent on education, the NHS and the military combined.
Does that include all the lazy bastards that were so over joyed to be governed by the Tories again that they immediately stopped working?
And no, it isn't 4.5 billion since 2003, it's 4.5 billion in the last year.
I had to look it up. Apparently we have 10,000 military personel to the US's 90,000. This is quite a lot considering our population is around 1/6th the size.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. I suspect the 193 bil figue includes education. "Only" £137 bil went the Department of Work and Pensions total, around half of this went on state pensions. This brilliant graphic from the Guardian newspaper shows UK public spending in full if you're interested (2009 figures):
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua … di-003.jpg
For all the rhetoric, the UK does spend too much on benefits, everybody's in agreement on that. Do you know what the US spends, out of interest as a comparable % of GDP?
Yes and destined to spend even more under this benevolent right wing government!
you are a fool, the democrat/socialist spend more not the republicans. The Us was born on capitalism not socialism and should stay that way, anyone wanting socialism should move to europe. I happen to Love europe and most people are very nice but I wouldnt want to live there. John, you need to be a man and stop worrying about terrorist because when your weak they attack even more and will take over your country. be a man! only the strong survive.
Ah, I'm a fool! Another thoughtful and inciteful post!
I repeat, unemployment figures are increasing under the right wing government.
This isn't a rant or rhetoric, it's a fact.
WTF do you mean about being afraid of terrorism!
If you haven't anything constructive to say, do you really think that is worth saying?
And you reckon I'm clueless!
£4.5 billion pa in Afghanistan and Iraq supporting the American invasion and incidentally making our selves targets for Islamic terrorism.
Now, about those history and economic lessons!
You think that a piddly 4.5 billion in afghanistan and iraq... Is significant?
You think that you're a target BECAUSE you've got a few men in the middle east? Man, are you deluded.
We have about 1/9th the number of troops that the US has there, although our population is only 1/6th the size. So it's not quite as dramatic as it sounds.
It's the one public spend that you don't mind?!
And we are a target a la 7th July 2007 when 52 people were murdered in London by people who specifically cited the UK's involvement in Afghanistan as the reason for doing it.
You've been the target for hundreds of years.
Yes, but they quite specifically said that it was because of Afghanistan. That sort of proves that it makes us a target. so....
Yes, including a target for US sponsored terrorism for a hundred or so years!
A fine way to treat your allies!
We are a small country with a much smaller population than the US, yes, it is significant. It's about 10% of the current deficit.
Or, in US terms about 1.4 Trillion dollars.
Way off. You may provide men, and pay them. But we provide much of the funding and logistics and some of the equipment. You say you provide 1/9? That's fine. You pay 4.5 billion pounds, about 8 billion dollars. Our bill is 100 to 130 billion dollars, and that doesn't include the parts in the normal pentagon budget that end up being used over there.
We probably ship your entire budget over there, just with our spending on the military bases and wages WE pay for on YOUR soil that subsidizes and pays out wages and spending over there. There's currently 10 RAF bases alone, which are manned by our equipment, men, and hired people, which spend money over there, a huge boost to your economy. We also do this in many of the European countries, pay much of NATO's budget and anytime there's a crisis we show up and foot the bill.
I DO know the nature of things...
Dude, take it easy. British guys have died, are dying and will die over there because their government is helping us. Don't piss on an ally.
They are targets, islamists have bombed their buses and subways and people died.
We've been terrorizing YOU for a hundred years?
The blood of countless thousands of Americans who died on your pathetic little island, and across the channel, to put down the tyrant your twit Chamberlain let grow into a global menace and then turned on you and tried to destroy you, just cried up from the ground, in an anguished shriek, crying "We did this for THAT?"
I think he's referring to that trouble they had with Irish people. I'm not knowledgable at all but the British claim that our government helped the IRA. I'm not sure about the 100 years stuff and what those initials stand for. I don't think that's true but I really don't have any idea.
I don't think there was any suggestion that your government helped the IRA but certainly some used their political status for fund raising.
For example Mayor Daly (I think it was he) held fund raising dinners in Chicago.
Or in one of the earliest outrages in the 19th century there were several Americans involved.
BTW, the IRA is the Irish Republican Army.
Good grief, the 19th century? Are you holding a grudge that long? How old are you?
Well at what point would you like me to start caring, it was ongoing for the whole of that period with no natural break.
Well it's not about not caring but if you go on about things like that I should still resent you for trying to make us pay taxes without representation, the war of 1812, for meddling in our Civil War and for dragging us into WW1 and WW2, especially when you guys could have handled Hitler early instead of appeasing the little creep. And I wasn't even born yet.
But the difference is that those things are past history, nobody is still suffering from any of those things, we're best mates with Germany now and you've overcome our wanting you to pay taxes without representation. I can barely remember what the war of 1812 was about, it certainly isn't on going.
The troubles in Ireland stretched from the nineteenth to the end of the 20th century, had we still been trying to tax you after that period of time then you'd be well within your rights to be pee'd off.
But it has ended. Right?
Besides with your attitude and your country's past history, I'm thinking it's the British's fault and you have no one but yourself to blame.
Fingers crossed, it's ended.
Couldn't agree more about our culpability. Though I don't think that justifies US intervention.
Tell that to a mother who lost her kids in Omagh high street.
I would think that mothers on both sides lost kids.
I think the point is that the bombers and the kids were notionally on the same side!
It doesn't really matter who's side they were on. The vast majority of people didn't care a damn about sides. The Irish could have Northern Ireland back tomorrow for me, I've never even been to the bloody place. It's not quite that simple though.
I didn't say that you had been terrorising us, but that your country men had been sponsoring terrorism for at least a hundred years.
Are you referring to that Irish thing? And where'd you get 100 years? I don't think we sponsor terrorism unless we're trying to topple communists. And as far as I know, Britain isn't communist yet.
Yes, that Irish thing!
As I said in my other post, I don't think that sponsorship was endorsed by your government but they certainly knew about it and put an end to web sites pleading support for the IRA after 9/11.
Yeah the Americans on the other hand, were really quick to act.
I'm not putting them down as an ally. I'm trying to get this guy to understand the nature of things he seems to not have dug into much. My father was over there, on D-Day, his uncle jumped out of an airplane, on D-Day. There were no more stalwart of an ally than the Brits, in that global conflict, and trust me, I do appreciate that fact.
Like anyone else... the best thing on earth that can happen to you, is that you lose a war to us. Because we rush in, rebuild, renew, and then support you for generations. And, turn you into our friend, people we trust.
Who then turn around and call us "imperial". Sorry ingrates.
Are you for real? You are so "out there" you've got me thinking you're a Stephen Colbert wannabe.
Tell me, what do I advocate that's "out there"?
BTW, I do my advocating, the explaining what I'm "for" on my hubpages. So, instead of relying on someone else's "explanation" of what I think ( which will be untrue), just read it and tell me.
oh, and quote my comments on Eire.
" We have the world's BEST health care, period. By every true measure." Had to check to see what country this person was from. Think even Cuba has a better health care system than the mighty USA. "The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health.
by Holle Abee 8 years ago
WHY are we helping to bail out Greece when we're broke? I mean, I feel sorry for the Greek citizens, but can we really afford this right now?
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes today 1-5-08 is entitled "Fighting Off Depression." In it he called the recent economic numbers "terrifying," not just in the U.S. but around the world. Manufacturing in particular is plunging everywhere; banks aren't lending; businesses and...
by Brian 7 years ago
I was on facebook earlier today, and a friend of mine posted a Youtube video about just how much money is being used to support the Bush tax cuts for the rich. 100 Billion dollars of the average tax payer's money! Which amounts to over $83,000.00 a year for a single individual making over...
by logic,commonsense 7 years ago
Read an article on MSN that the projected deficit for this year is 1.5 trillion dollars. Makes bush look like a piker with his measly 3-400 billion dollar deficits.Course there will be those that forget that bush is no longer prez and will find a way to blame him.Obama and the Dems own...
by American View 5 years ago
Nancy Pelosi was on Fax News last Sunday continuing to claim their is no spending problem. She also claims that sequestration was wrong. First, if it was so wrong as she admittedly claimed, why did she so vocally support it in the first place?Second, she blames the Republicans cuts would...
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
Economists Agree: Solutions Are ElusiveBy EDUARDO PORTERPublished: April 23, 2013 "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to assess how the most intense crisis to have shaken the industrialized economies since the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|