The Not So "Infinite" Pie

[Rich]

Didn't Soviets describe themselves as Communist?

I do understand socialists are basically Communists, but I'm using the Soviets own description.

Interesting question though, what is the difference? Is there any?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Interesting question though, what is the difference? Is there any?

===============================
You could google this and find out.

I am betting that you won't, because you appear to prefer ignorance.

[Rich]

<chuckle>

I thought it might make for interesting discussion. But hey, fuck off if you like.

[_JS]

Yea, yea....we righties apparently can't do nuance, while everything apparently requires it         

I didn't say you needed nuance. You need something resembling an argument with supported facts. Like data or reasonable logic.

Your problem here Js, is that they have been brought out, in reasoned format.  You simply don't want to acknowledge it.  Our system of government and economic model have prompted this little country to become the superpower it is today, in the matter of a mere 230+yrs.  That's far shorter a period of time than any other country.  the middle east is STILL operating in 3rd world mode, in many areas.  Point being, that despite all this supposed negative ramifications of capitalism, it combined with the freedoms we hold dear in this country, as outlined in our consitution, are the envy of so many, that they have to come up with all sorts of demeaning stats and disortions in order to try and discredit it, all the while ignoring the power that this country has become precisely because of capitalism coupled with our constitution.

Socialism & Liberalism is simply "feel-good" economics.  Well intentioned, but fatally flawed in so many ways, and demonstrated to be a failure nearly everytime it was tried. 

Your problem Sirs is that you base your entire system of beliefs on anecdotal evidence that scarcely exists.

We are the envy of whom? What freedoms do I have here that I don't have in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Iceland?

Your last sentence is a joke. I've shown you countries that are doing very well with socialism, they have better education for their children, better public services, better healthcare, safer cities, better transportation systems, a better quality of life than the United States (and most countries in the world) yet you turn around and say "it doesn't work" contrary to all the evidence pointing to the fact that it most certainly does work.

You have given no facts except that we are a Superpower, i.e. an Empire.

Wow.

What does that mean? Does being a superpower make the inner city of Detroit a better place to live for the Americans there? Memphis? New Orleans?

Does being a Superpower bring better healthcare to everyone?

I haven't seen it. If you were honest you'd admit that you've not seen it either.

So go beyond the petty anecdotes and give me some facts. Where is this freedom that the Danes, Finns, Swedes, and Norwegiens don't have? Where are these envious hordes? Are they mostly from third world countries in Latin America? Do you know the history of Honduras? El Salvador? Guatemala? Mexico? Do you know about the Governments that peddled capitalism in those countries? The right-wing death squads that murdered priests?

Let's talk freedom, but let's use facts and data - not anecdotes and jingoism.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your problem here Js, is that they have been brought out, in reasoned format.  You simply don't want to acknowledge it.  Our system of government and economic model have prompted this little country to become the superpower it is today, in the matter of a mere 230+yrs.  That's far shorter a period of time than any other country.  the middle east is STILL operating in 3rd world mode, in many areas. 

=================================================================
It took Spain from 1492 to about 1520 to become a superpower, when (1) Columbus discovered the New World and (2) Carlos V of Spain became the Holy Roman Emperor.

It took England from perhaps 1588 to 1750, between the sinking of the Spanish Armada to the conquest of India.

Portugal was a superpower by the late 1590's.

The Middle East consists of many countries that are 3rd world by any standards: Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and others that are in the process of becoming more advanced.

The US was extremely lucky because not only did it inherit a huge amount of natural resources, there was also a great system of river transport to get it to market, and no tropical diseases that were as fatal to Europeans as malaria, dengue and yellow fever.

Canada is not a superpower, despite its huge amount of natural resources, because it lacks the population, but the standard of living is on a par with the US anyway. Canada's government is as democratic as that of the US, if not more so. There are more than two viable parties in most provinces, anyway.


 

[The_Professor]

Yea, yea....we righties apparently can't do nuance, while everything apparently requires it         

I didn't say you needed nuance. You need something resembling an argument with supported facts. Like data or reasonable logic.

Your problem here Js, is that they have been brought out, in reasoned format.  You simply don't want to acknowledge it.  Our system of government and economic model have prompted this little country to become the superpower it is today, in the matter of a mere 230+yrs.  That's far shorter a period of time than any other country.  the middle east is STILL operating in 3rd world mode, in many areas.  Point being, that despite all this supposed negative ramifications of capitalism, it combined with the freedoms we hold dear in this country, as outlined in our consitution, are the envy of so many, that they have to come up with all sorts of demeaning stats and disortions in order to try and discredit it, all the while ignoring the power that this country has become precisely because of capitalism coupled with our constitution.

Socialism & Liberalism is simply "feel-good" economics.  Well intentioned, but fatally flawed in so many ways, and demonstrated to be a failure nearly everytime it was tried. 

Your problem Sirs is that you base your entire system of beliefs on anecdotal evidence that scarcely exists.

We are the envy of whom? What freedoms do I have here that I don't have in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, or Iceland?

Your last sentence is a joke. I've shown you countries that are doing very well with socialism, they have better education for their children, better public services, better healthcare, safer cities, better transportation systems, a better quality of life than the United States (and most countries in the world) yet you turn around and say "it doesn't work" contrary to all the evidence pointing to the fact that it most certainly does work.

You have given no facts except that we are a Superpower, i.e. an Empire.

Wow.

What does that mean? Does being a superpower make the inner city of Detroit a better place to live for the Americans there? Memphis? New Orleans?

Does being a Superpower bring better healthcare to everyone?

I haven't seen it. If you were honest you'd admit that you've not seen it either.

So go beyond the petty anecdotes and give me some facts. Where is this freedom that the Danes, Finns, Swedes, and Norwegiens don't have? Where are these envious hordes? Are they mostly from third world countries in Latin America? Do you know the history of Honduras? El Salvador? Guatemala? Mexico? Do you know about the Governments that peddled capitalism in those countries? The right-wing death squads that murdered priests?

Let's talk freedom, but let's use facts and data - not anecdotes and jingoism.

Js, do you have emigration data for those Scandinavian countries? After all, if they are as wonderful as you repeatedly state, wouldn't everyone want to go there? Are they? Are they attempting to? After all, I know many attempt to come HERE as well as the many who apply and do come here legally to live and WORK, not only those south of the border. What are the stats for the Wonder that is Scandinavia? Are people beating down the doors to go there like they are here in this downtrodden, only-to-serve-the-rich nation called America?

[The_Professor]

and yet, for all of Canada's positives, as you just stated, I do not see the immigration to Canada that I see here. Is it because, Heaven forbid, the United Statres is indeed a wonderful place that people want to come to live and work in? Canada has plenty of available land and industry and a good standard of living, so why aren't folks rushing tot go there like they are here. Please enlighten me. Seriously, I may be missing something here. (really).

I hear a lot of discussion about the negatives of our nation in this forum and if it is so dang terrible, why do people FLOCK in great numbers to come HERE?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Canada has had almost as high a percentage of immigration as the US. If Canada had a border with Mexico, I am sure it would be higher. The US is closer to Mexico than Canada is.

Canada is also less permissive about allowing illegals to stay.

Immigrants do not come because of our system of government.

[_JS]

Professor,

People are beating down the doors enough in Denmark that they elected a right-wing Government (remember that this is right wing in terms of Denmark, not the US) that specifically ran on a campaign of toughening immigration laws and restricting access to the country.

So yes, people are immigrating to Scandinavia.

A lot of people do migrate to the United States, but if you took away the third world border we have, which no Scandinavian nation has, then our immigration figures would not be nearly as impressive.

As an example, Mexico has a huge illegal immigration problem on its Southern borders (see the recent National Geographic article). If we used your theory we'd have to assume that Mexico is an amazing and desirable place to live. Of course it is not, it is just that it shares a border with some dramatically impoverished nations.

I've shown you the economic stats and international reports that show Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland as some of the top countries throughout the world across many factors that effect one's quality of life. You've shown me nothing except one dubious theory on immigration and Sirs' pseudo-historical theory on Empire.

[The_Professor]

Ok. I was not aware the Scandinavian countries were experiencing such an immigration problem. Not that I doubt you, but why don't we hear about this in the news?

[The_Professor]

Canada has had almost as high a percentage of immigration as the US. If Canada had a border with Mexico, I am sure it would be higher. The US is closer to Mexico than Canada is.

Canada is also less permissive about allowing illegals to stay.

Immigrants do not come because of our system of government.

I wonder. Is there data on how many people leave the U.S. to go ot Canada? or the reverse? That mgiht prove interesting data pertinent to this discussion.

[_JS]

Ok. I was not aware the Scandinavian countries were experiencing such an immigration problem. Not that I doubt you, but why don't we hear about this in the news?

Good question to be perfectly honest I have no idea. I don't find that American news outlets are very useful for world news. I really don't mean that as a slight to this country, I just think it is a disservice to the people. Canadian and British newspapers and the CBC and BBC seem to do a far better job with world news.

Here's an article from the BBC in November 2007 before a snap election Professor:

Danes in poll tussle over migrants
By Thomas Buch-Andersen
BBC News, Copenhagen 


Immigration has become the central battleground in the Danish parliamentary election, which takes place on Tuesday.

Denmark's relations with the Muslim world reached crisis point in 2005 over a Danish newspaper's publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

The leader of the opposition Social Democrats, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, proposes to relax restrictions on asylum seekers.

The centre-right Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warns that such a move could turn Denmark into "a magnet for refugees".

Strict immigration policies have been at the heart of his government's programme since 2001.

Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, daughter-in-law of former British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock, wants to give a group of some 500 Iraqi failed asylum seekers permission to live and work outside their refugee camps until Iraq becomes safe enough for them to return. She says Denmark has a special responsibility to help the Iraqis because of Denmark's role in the Iraq conflict.

Although most Danes want to ease restrictions on asylum seekers, Mrs Thorning-Schmidt still looks unlikely to win.

Her party, like Mr Fogh Rasmussen's, would need the support of the centre-right New Alliance Party to form a government - but it is thought to be leaning towards the incumbent prime minister.

Cartoon row

New Alliance was founded in May this year by a popular immigrant politician, Syrian-born Naser Khader.

He came to prominence in 2005 when he promoted reconciliation and religious tolerance to defuse the row over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Anti-cartoon protests across the Muslim world left more than 100 dead. Mr Khader, who has "democracy" tattooed across his right arm, remains a cultural Muslim.

His party wants to reform Denmark's tax system. The country has one of the highest tax rates in the world - up to 68% - and New Alliance is keen to reduce it. The party also wants better conditions for asylum seekers.

Rival Muslim candidate

Mr Khader contrasts with the other prominent Muslim politician in the race, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid of the left-wing Unity List.

Mrs Abdol-Hamid - who wears a headscarf - has upset many by refusing to shake hands with men in public for religious reasons.

There is absolutely no way we will bow to a terror organisation
Pia Kjaersgaard, DPP leader 

At the other end of the political spectrum is the anti-immigration Danish People's Party (DPP). The DPP has been the driving force behind the tightening of Denmark's immigration laws in recent years.

It has angered the Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Gaza by using an image of the Prophet Muhammad on one of its election posters, in direct reference to the cartoon row.

The image was accompanied by the text "Freedom of speech is Danish, censorship is not".

No TV debate

In an interview with Jyllandsposten, the newspaper that originally published the cartoons, a spokesman for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Khaled al-Jabbari, said "this party is dealing with the blood of the Danish people. That is dangerous."

"The DPP will not only be an enemy of the Al-Aqsa Brigade. They will be an enemy of many Muslims," he added.
DPP leader Pia Kjaersgaard said "this is insane - there is absolutely no way we will bow to a terror organisation".

"We did not draw the image. It is a 400-year-old drawing of Muhammad that we are using to symbolise freedom of speech."

Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said "Al-Aqsa Brigade is a terror organisation that should not dictate the political life of Denmark".

Although he is the favourite to win the election, Mr Fogh Rasmussen has been reluctant to meet Mrs Thorning-Schmidt at live debates. He says such debates are too populist and distract from real politics.

However, some commentators suggest that his real concern is that Mrs Thorning-Schmidt, the first female prime ministerial candidate in Denmark, has a better connection with the audience. "

Whoever wins, immigration will remain high up Denmark's political agenda.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7087474.stm

Published: 2007/11/13 13:21:13 GMT

? BBC MMVIII

[The_Professor]

Well, I see the U.S. is not alone in having weirdos in the political arena.

[_JS]

Well, I see the U.S. is not alone in having weirdos in the political arena.

No. And like any state they have problems with racism too. I've never claimed that the Scandinavian nations are perfect or even close. I just think that they run a state far better than we do. Plus I have stats to show it.

[The_Professor]

Well, I see the U.S. is not alone in having weirdos in the political arena.

No. And like any state they have problems with racism too. I've never claimed that the Scandinavian nations are perfect or even close. I just think that they run a state far better than we do. Plus I have stats to show it.

"better" is subjective, is it not?