It'llrun

Yeah... all that's great... Costa Rica isn't in North America... Don't look now. Seriously, it's considered "central America" and to me, it's further south than Aruba, which I would call a S. American island country... That's me.

Being a happy country means NOTHING here. You can bet they didn't ask anyone awaiting a heart or lung transplant, I'll tell ya that.

Denmark, the 1st listed on your "shot" about which socialist countries are doing best, does NOT have a socialist economy. There's is generally referred to as an "Industrialized Market Economy," much like the good ole USA... Frankly, that type of economy even fits China and most nations of the world today, even when they're main description is Communist, Socialist or Capitalist(closest to market from the start) Sweden uses a much closer to(and many say outright) Capitalist economy as well. Indeed, they voted to NOT join in with the Euro... and some 90% of production is done through privately owned companies.

It's better than our governments idea... They'd rather everyone have stuff... no matter on cost, you can have it... That leads to ZERO production, because everyone ultimately has the entitlement mindset. We see it here on this site regularly...

At any rate, Capitalism isn't easy... But it DOES work, ultimately. Socialism isn't easy because it fails. Until it fails, however, not everyone has it bad. Once the production phase ends and the entitlement phase is in, GAME OVER! With Capitalism, that doesn't happen because people realize they're expected to pull their own load OR they'll be in the lower end of society. This drives people to WORK as opposed to sit home.

Do you realize you just told me my opinion is wrong, but your opinion is correct? That's what ya did... Political interest goes up? Not much, and it's never been higher than during the 2008 election cycle. Since then, we've had 1 election and the numbers, as expected, were way down. However, during that 2010 cycle, the economy was as bad as, or worse than it's been since the Great Depression. On the rare occasion it actually goes up, it's because people are ANGRY, not interested. They're typically holding a small amount of interest... Just not much anger. These days, they're angry. They're angry because they're tired of government intervention... This determination is easy to reach, simply noting how many incumbents(excluding dumbass CA) were booted out. Not to be an ***, but... what the HECK is a "mechanations?" I took it as mechanisms and moved on, but curiousity strikes... Typo as I figured?

Not for nothin' but... GM makes them about as cheap as anyone... Chrysler tops that list. It may cost more, but they make 'em cheap...

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

I was hoping your arguments would hold a little more weight than this but it seems like you've peaked!

That's it... You ignore the whole point that was made and focus on the fact that Newsweek decides to label Costa Rica as part of the N.American Continent! That's all you could come up with!!
Weak-sauce. I showed you that you were wrong, point blank, deal with it.

That's moronic! You claim that every country that has Socialist systems are a failure and are suffering, and I show you that your COMPLETELY wrong and that countries with social systems are in fact HAPPY (opposite of suffering) and thriving (opposite of failure) and you say it means nothing. Terrible retort, you were proved wrong, take it like a man.

And if they did ask those awaiting a heart or lung transplant this is what they'd find...

32 of the 36 countries that rank better in health care than the US have Universal Health Care!!

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.c...reworldbig.jpg


Show me where you think that these countries don't have employ a socialist agenda!! Ya can't, because Denmark is a model for countries when it comes to Social programs. Denmark and Sweden are both known as large Welfare states, that means among other things they enjoy free public health care, free education, free child care and free job training on top of generous unemployment benefits. If that's not socialism I don't know what is!!

http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/...ark-usat_N.htm

You claim socialism is a failure, but you have no evidence and no leg to stand on in any of your arguments.

What idea? Our government promotes free market economies, your talking about communism?

Your theory is terrible, lacks evidence, and borders on confusion with Communism, not at all what were discussing here.
The most productive country in the world is a Norway, a country known as melding it's social programs with Capitalism. The best and strongest countries today are learning to blend the best of socialism and the best capitalism to make for stronger economies. Hybrid's, it's something I've been saying all along.

Agree to disagree then.

Google works on your computer doesn't it? You'll like that word, kind describes everything you feel towards the government.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/machination

beerwhiskeyjoe

This article is bullshit because:

Loaning ~10 billion, and paying back in full with interest is NOT a bailout. It is a loan. Disappearing ~40 billion before you declare bankruptcy and NOT paying back a dime like GM did IS a bailout.

A loan from the Federal Reserve is NOT a loan from the government. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank given the (debatable) power by the Federal Reserve Act to issue and control currency. In return the government gets to appoint board members and chairman, but seeing as they are all from member banks Ron Paul could be president and no one could stop them from making a loan. Point being, the Federal Reserve is not part or owned by the US Government. It is privately owned and run privately essentially completely free of government control. Ford did NOT take a loan from the US Government.

I'm all for GM recovering and becoming more competitive than ever before, but a spade is a spade. GM sucked the government tit. Ford did not.

It'llrun

If an organisation as large as NEWSWEEK can't even figure out WHERE the place is, why should I offer any stock in their argument? I shouldn't.

How do you know for a fact, based solely on opinion? Think about it now... We're on that point where you want to agree to disagree, aren't we.

Ahhh yes... Now we've reached the part where you insert information MADE UP by socialists(such as "The Commonwealth Fund) and call it factual... Reality is, those "studies" are inconclusive because ONLY AMERICA always reports unnatural deaths to calculate average lifespan. The other countries specifically omit those numbers, which bolsters their life expectancy rate. Remove our roughly 100,000 "accidental" and "intentional" deaths per year and our life expentance rises accordingly.

Plus, the page you provided hasn't been updated since 2007 and says right on it, the complete study hasn't been done since 2000, due to complexity... To further complicate matters, the data STOPS with people 75yrs of age, according to the information provided. I know several people older than 75.

Now, to put those "numbers" into perspective, you'll have to go back and look at WHEN their system(and which type, single payer, 2 tier, whatever) was put into place and then determine how well it's worked based on whether or not those "death rates" have decreased over time, or increased. It's not all as simple as you obviously think... It would help you IMMENSELY to have studied these things prior to just the past week or so. When unnatural deaths are removed from the US statistics, the US is #1.

Clearly, you haven't "done your homework" on this. Use your browser... Type in "Market economies" and see what you find. Denmark is a fine example of what NOT to do, but it's population is less than New York City, so it has a shot... Do you realize it has the world's highest tax rate? Taxes range from 42% to 63% of personal ASSETS... Ya want that here? We're workin' on it! That said, "THE CONSTITUTION

-The Constitutional Act lays down the framework of Danish democracy. It outlines the citizens’ rights or human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, which i.a. are intended to protect them against infringement of their rights by the State. - from Denmark.dk

At any rate, they claim to be based in a "Market economy." Do keep in mind, we're not talking about the government itself, but the type of economy. Even so, they don't claim their government is socialistic, but I would agree it is for the most part.

Yeah, at their tax rate, someone tell me where the "free" part happens... They even tax income earned from OTHER countries! Looks SOCIALIST, but they claim otherwise and offer several comments to their reasoning... Maybe they're just like America's government, and lie about it. Even the article in your link claims "Free Market" to be a major part of their econmic system.

BALDERDASH! Look at all those countries and tell us which one has a higher GDP... While it's a tough argument to sell, we still have more freedoms than most other nations as well.

As has been noted many times over the past few years, our government does NOT promote free market economies INSIDE America. That's the big problem. Therefore, the "idea" is socialism, which our government promotes openly, while saying they don't.

If you EVER studied these things, you'd already know that socialism and comminism are almost identical in structure and implementation.

The most productive country in the world is NOT Norway... Norway isn't even close... AMERICA is the most productive country in the world. Perhaps PER CAPITA Norway is #1, but not in any real sense. In that, Norway is around #25. The EU is larger than America, and nothing else is even close, though China will surpass us soon, I'm sure. America could easily regain overall #1 and maintain it, if ONLY we'd produce our own oil and sell it as well as use it.

Those "hybrids" are known as "Market economies" and have been for decades. NO country worthy of being named doesn't have regulations...

Really? That's all you've got here? Basically, you're saying that since your opinion accounts for something and mine doesn't, we'll disagree... Facts remain... Opinions don't amount to facts.

Well in all fairness, you got it wrong by adding an S to the word... From that point, it's not actually a word anymore. "Mechanation" is a plural form...

HAVE AT IT from here on out... We're so far off topic it's actually bothering me...

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

It'll run - You think the US needs to produce and sell their oil? Trust me, at the current demand level, the US doesn't even come close to producing enough oil for just your own needs, never mind trying to export!

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

Weak-sauce

YOU FAIL

All I've done is given evidence to support my stance, you can't even do that. You just yap about how every country that has Socialist systems are a failure and are suffering. You can't support that argument with ANYTHING, not a SHRED of proof to validate your wild claims.

That's your weakest and most pathetic argument to date.


Studied about it this past week? I was born and raised in Europe and Northern Africa, I didn't need to read about it in a book to know how their systems work or how and where the US system ranks in comparison. Although I've studied both of them in college, I can assure you reading the propaganda that you so freely embrace does not have the answers. Live and pay taxes in both systems and maybe you can see the benefits that EACH have!

(Making an assumption, without knowing why my American parents were over there in the first place would be stupid)

Really?? Your gonna try and dis-credit the World Health Organization? I can't provide you any more concrete information than from them.

And try to keep up will you, I'm talking about health care systems. Show me where the US ranks at the top of health care systems. PLEASE!

Since you want to play the "What if" scenerio... here's a itemized rankings of where the US ranks in health care, are you gonna come up with more BS excuses now too?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/worl...nce_ranks.html


Apparently I have done my homework, you obviously can't make sense of what you read.


I was wondering when you would get to the high taxes, predictable really. This is where "free" happens.
How much was your college tuition?

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/33...ntloans01.html

How much do you (or your employer) pay in health insurance? (To add salt to the wounds, remember where we rank world wide in health care. Value for money is )

http://www.thetaoofmakingmoney.com/2007/07/06/427.html

How much do you pay in Child care per year?

http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-much...are_1199776.bc

How much Social Security tax do you pay a year, how bout every other kinda of tax you can think of?

http://www.nowandfutures.com/taxes.html

I haven't even touched on the fact that companies don't have to pay benefits for their employee's the same way that they do here in the states, and that extra money is seen in the paychecks of the employee's.

No, I have studied these things and there are VERY important differences between the two. Your failure to know and be able separate the two is what leaves you so near sighted and unable to get past your own hatred for a system you do not know enough about.


Your COMPLETELY missing the point! I mean COMPLETELY!!
You can cut it up and slice it how you want it, if you wanna use GDP than yeah america is #1, if you wanna use GDP/capita than Norway is #1. POINT THAT WAS BEING MADE is that contrary to your repeated claims of countries who are socialist...THEY ARE NOT failing and suffering.


According to the Wall Street Journal, Norway is the most productive country in the world.

http://247wallst.com/2010/06/28/72005/2/



NO **** SHERLOCK!! That's what I've been saying this whole time!

What facts? You haven't been able to pull a fact out of your *** all week.

With all the topics we've been discussing, all the points I've addressed that you fail to counter with any kinda of validity, all you can do is focus on the plurality of a word that I used. Hard to imagine how you couldn't figure out the word Machination from MachinationS.


Woulda been more man of you to just admit you were wrong. Apparently you can't come to grips with that. Your obviously ignorant and talk in absolutes, what did you think is gonna happen.

It'llrun

That would be the entire point of producing more... The current demand and production rates don't mesh. We have plenty of oil, perhaps more than any other nation in the world... We just don't use it. I think that's because our government thinks the world will run out one day, and America will be the benefactor of new demand... I don't think that's a smart approach, but it's almost the only "semi-logical" reason they have.

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

You need the reserves to be able to produce. And you need to be able to produce with profit for any economic gain at all. Trust me, the big companies in the US would LOVE to be able to supply enough oil to meet your demand. Fact is that the US IMPORTS more than half of its demand for oil. That's giving a lot of money to other countries - and if they could so easily produce enough in the US alone, they would!

I am not disagreeing with the logic you have, but the resources are not there to justify the arguement.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

I've also read that if the US did not have to import any Crude from overseas, whether they produce their own, consume less or our energy needs shift to a different medium, we would not be operating under a negative trade deficit! Now that's very cool indeed!!

It'llrun

The resources ARE there, but our government holds up a stop sign every place it can and even(see link below) tries to in places it cannot(legally). For example: ANWR... It is "estimated" that the US may have more crude within its borders and near off-shore than any other nation in the world. These "estimates" have been widely known for at least 20yrs now. The reason most of our oil comes from other nations isn't that we don't have it, but that we're not ALLOWED to produce it. This is where leasing has been a problem since around 1980. The government forces oil companies to lease the area of production, at a price set by the government AND only in areas the government permits the leases, regardless of where the oil actually is.

In a nutshell, this isn't about what the oil companies would like to do, but what our stingy government will allow. Over the past 3 decades, what they've allowed is massively smaller than what's available. The government "allowed" the Trans-Alaska Pipeline... Then it forced production to remain at only about 10% of capacity.

Here's a recent story most Americans are surely wholly unaware exists... http://www.sitnews.us/0910news/092910/092910_anwr.html

America may NEVER "not need" imported crude oil, but it certainly could "need" far less imported oil than it's getting now, if not for unrealistic regulations imposed on the oil companies and Americans at large. Were places like and including ANWR truly open for use, American reliance on foreign oil could literally drop in 1/2(or more than 1/2) in an extremely short amount of time.

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

It seems that your opinion would be to produce it at any cost to the environment and not even consider sustainability. This is a very limited view point, and not a well thought out one.

As someone who is employed by a major producer of oil in NA, I feel that you might reconsider your approach if you saw the price tag of environmental cleanups on a local level alone. And if you argue that it is bull$hit, go ahead and try - but history has told us that every company operates at the MINIMUM standard as set by the government and that those standards do not ever decrease! Point is, that environmental protections, land usage, and sustainability as dictated by any government are there so that a company cannot go and entirely deplete a resource to satisfy a large demand for a short period of time.

It'llrun

1st thing to note and perhaps you may even want to question yourself on this... Does it hurt the environment LESS, somehow, when oil is attained from Iran that it does from Alaska? The answer is a resounding NO... So toss that SILLY NONSENSE about the cost to the environment... You're coming off as a tree hugger and I don't have time for that level of stupidity and/or ignorance.

I'll get back to ya... Taking the dog out...

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

Thanks for letting me know I'm coming off as a tree hugger

If you would read a little deeper than the surface in my message, I was pointing out that the governments - both American and Canadian have standards that oil companies (like the one I work for) must adhere to and follow. These "tree hugger" standards are not optional - and do not decrease as we move forward in time, and so cost companies increasingly more every year to produce X amount of oil. Also, I never once said I agreed with the government standards, only that they exist. As for foreign oil producing and their environmental standards - that is not within US or NA control - yet.

Anyway, we are way off topic and having read many of your other posts in other threads I will bow out here as I believe you're only purpose here is to prove to everyone that you like to argue and cannot accept a valid counterpoint. I already stated that I agreed with your "produce more to fulfill demand" point, just that it isn't feasible as a long term solution.

Fair enough?

It'llrun

The entire point is that the US government(FAR MORE than Canada) is preventing US oil companies from bringing oil to Americans, let alone the rest of the world. The US gets a massive amount of its imports from Canada. Clearly, it's easier to go after it there.

The US government should be minding it's business, which doesn't include preventing Americans from using American resources, but does allow for some amount of limitations on abuse.

As for you agreeing or not, I had clearly pointed out the existence of regulations, so it appeared you were merely defending them. On that note, I do get the impression you like them.

The US government has such a lack of grip on other countries, it allows THEM to drill in waters off American shores, but won't allow Americans to do the same. I do believe that is in violation of our Constitution, but that's another matter.

I'll argue with anyone I think is wrong, including you. That's life and I do the same in person. It doesn't win many friends, but the ones I have are real, not superficial.

As to a counterpoint, it will never be "feasible" unless and until our laws are amended in such a way as to help American businesses by allowing them to do what they do without added taxation and special rules not suffered most other countries. The point I was making there is that our government is the problem and our laws need to be changed, plus we need to prevent more ridiculous laws from being implemented. You profit personally from our bad laws. Therefore, I don't at all expect you to see this as I do.

I don't see where you agreed. I see where you defended the position that "we can't" do anything about it and while that may seem reasonable in Canada, that's not how Americans think in general. We're NOT a nation of "can't do" people. We HAVE the resources and the ability... We just need to get our government to realize the only hindrance IS the government, to our getting more oil from within, than from outside America.

We do agree on being off topic(again) so fine... I can unsubscribe.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

Must be nice to be so close minded...