socialism in America.

[qxr1011]

In the UK version of Socialism it was the intention to liberate the workers from the shackles of the robber barons, who paid as little as possible and robbed the company of its wealth. Called exploitation.
Stalin and the rest were no Socialists. Just used the name to grab onto power and keep it. Even the Nazis called their party National Socialists.
Well that's politics for you.

no more calls to read Marx?

 

[tomorton]

In the UK version of Socialism it was the intention to liberate the workers from the shackles of the robber barons, who paid as little as possible and robbed the company of its wealth. Called exploitation.
Stalin and the rest were no Socialists. Just used the name to grab onto power and keep it. Even the Nazis called their party National Socialists.
Well that's politics for you.

But the clues are there written all over history for any peoples faced with the "option" of becoming either Socialist or Communist. Far too many of them ended up communist when they thought they were going to be socialist, run by dictators or dictatorial political bureaux or the ruling party, single-party states, subject to unjust regimes, poorer than their non-socialist/non-communist neighbours and peers and so on and so on. It has failed so many times, who would take that kind of risk again? Especially bearing in mind the appalling records of socialist and communist regimes in the lists of genocides.

Quite rare to see capitalist states engaged in genocide of their own people........

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

So Germany didn't have a penny to their name or any infrastructure to speak of after WWII, Belgium, France, Netherlands not much better. And even if you take Marshall Plan money into account, they were by no means wealthy countries when the Marshall Plan ended. But they have managed to increase the size of their economies by many multiples in the intervening 60 years....without being "pure capitalist" countries.
To put actual numbers to it, let's look at Finland. They went from a GDP of $53B in 1980 to $236B in 2016, per capita GDP from $11,000 to $43,000 (adjusted for inflation). And this huge expansion was during the time they had the most socialist policies in their history. (note the effect is even more dramatic for somewhere like Norway, I chose Finland because there's very little confounding impact from factors like natural resources). Again I think empirically there's little support for the fallacy that wealth only comes from "pure" capitalism and anything not pure capitalism drags an economy down, or that any socialist aspect of an economy are only being propped up by the "pure" capitalists. It is simply not reflected in the real economic data.

Turns out that free at the point of service healthcare, despite the fact that it costs money, can actually save the overall economy a significant amount because of productivity impacts. Turns out sick leave, even though it costs a company money with a naive view, might actually in aggregate save money from fewer contagious illness days and faster recovery times. Turns out keeping the elderly healthy and not requiring them to eat cat food might actually make them less of a drag on an economy, not more. And that's before you put a value on the overall happiness of your population that doesn't have to worry about getting wiped out by medical bills, a stint without a job, or simply old age; GDP isn't everything. It's an Ayn Randian fallacy that only "pure" capitalism creates value.

I wonder what percentage of GDP was milltary spending for the aforementioned countries over the last seventy or so years? Especially when compared the United States?

It is easier for the government to fund social programs when a significant part of their budget does not have to be allocated to millitary spending.

During, H.W. Bush’s Presidency, there was talk of a “peace dividend”. With Russia no longer being considered a threat, less money was spent on the millitary. This allowed for more fiscal flexibility and probably helped the US to have a balanced budget durung Clinton’s administration.

Just as the saying, “Don’t confuse brains with a bull market”, one could say “Don’t confuse robust social programs as a sign of sound government management”.

I’m not saying these countries were terribly managed. After all, they did have United States did foot a disproportionately large part of the defense bill for NATO and other defense agreements.

What happens to these countries if the U.S. is no longer able to maintain its current millitary spending commitment?

My guess is nothing. These countries probably will not change their millitary budget and accept less US commitment to the area. The Russians probably aren’t going to be an issue anyway.
Even if they do become an issue, the worst that probably will happen is a return to the “good old days”.

 

[tomorton]

I wonder what percentage of GDP was milltary spending for the aforementioned countries over the last seventy or so years? Especially when compared the United States?

It is easier for the government to fund social programs when a significant part of their budget does not have to be allocated to millitary spending.

During, H.W. Bush’s Presidency, there was talk of a “peace dividend”. With Russia no longer being considered a threat, less money was spent on the millitary. This allowed for more fiscal flexibility and probably helped the US to have a balanced budget durung Clinton’s administration.

Just as the saying, “Don’t confuse brains with a bull market”, one could say “Don’t confuse robust social programs as a sign of sound government management”.

I’m not saying these countries were terribly managed. After all, they did have United States did foot a disproportionately large part of the defense bill for NATO and other defense agreements.

What happens to these countries if the U.S. is no longer able to maintain its current millitary spending commitment?

My guess is nothing. These countries probably will not change their millitary budget and accept less US commitment to the area. The Russians probably aren’t going to be an issue anyway.
Even if they do become an issue, the worst that probably will happen is a return to the “good old days”.

Its politically convenient convenient for both left and right to over-state the proportion of GDP spent on defence. According to the World Bank, in 2016 the US spent 3.3% of its GDP on defence. Bearing in mind, the US gains back a proportion of its defence expenditure from export sales to other nations.

Its hard to see that such a small proportion of expenditure could de-rail really important social programmes.

 

[Humpy]

no more calls to read Marx?

Just in case you don't really know what KM was on about.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
Personally I am against the carnage of revolution, anarchy and it's consequences.
World War 1 was started by a revolutionary assassinating the leader of Austria.
The British Socialists were less violent and more intellectually gifted.
They supported the rights of the working masses against the rich, greedy bosses.

 

[tomorton]

Marx, the original bourgeois socialist, whose blinkered writings underlie the worst genocides in human history.

 

[qxr1011]

Just in case you don't really know what KM was on about.....

u kidding right?

or maybe you thought that i was kidding when i told you before that i studied him from mid-school and u sending me link to wiki ?

 

[qxr1011]

I wonder what percentage of GDP was milltary spending for the aforementioned countries over the last seventy or so years? Especially when compared the United States?

It is easier for the government to fund social programs when a significant part of their budget does not have to be allocated to millitary spending.

During, H.W. Bush’s Presidency, there was talk of a “peace dividend”. With Russia no longer being considered a threat, less money was spent on the millitary. This allowed for more fiscal flexibility and probably helped the US to have a balanced budget durung Clinton’s administration.

Just as the saying, “Don’t confuse brains with a bull market”, one could say “Don’t confuse robust social programs as a sign of sound government management”.

I’m not saying these countries were terribly managed. After all, they did have United States did foot a disproportionately large part of the defense bill for NATO and other defense agreements.

What happens to these countries if the U.S. is no longer able to maintain its current millitary spending commitment?

My guess is nothing. These countries probably will not change their millitary budget and accept less US commitment to the area. The Russians probably aren’t going to be an issue anyway.
Even if they do become an issue, the worst that probably will happen is a return to the “good old days”.

very good point

if not America, our European friends here would speak Russian long time ago, and would learn what socialism is about the hard way - Russian way

 

[Humpy]

u kidding right?

or maybe you thought that i was kidding when i told you before that i studied him from mid-school and u sending me link to wiki ?

Then why don't you explain your point ?

 

[qxr1011]

Then why don't you explain your point ?

is not that an explanation?:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/socialism-in-america.319406/page-19#post-4631037