Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 114
Thanks Tree80Thanks

Thread: What Do You Consider Extreme Left Wing Policies?

  1. #81
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,534
    Thanks
    1003

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by galatin View Post
    If you look at Western European countries, you have all kind of facts, in some of them, which would look extremely leftitst to many Americans, like free medical care, free education, high taxes, social benefits etc... In fact as long as these countries do well and are performing what the hell about them ? Are they totalitarian, communist or fascist ? They respect human rights, are democratic and very often successful economically and there is a climate of equality between the people living there who know that they can improve their condition through education. I mention here the Scandinavian countries, which are very social and where the state provides lots of things to its inhabitants. But is it really such a bad idea to offer all these services for free to many when you consider that today the IMF published a study where a universal basic revenue to all appears as a good method to address the challenges of the future, i.e. less jobs because of automation for example... As soon as you know you cannot offer jobs to everyone, you need solutions and this universal basic revenue may be an answer. Does it make sense for the USA to repatriate low skill and low paid jobs, when everyone knows that even if they are low paid, they will never be at the level of the ones of developping countries and should be replaced one day or another by robots ? Is it time to have a different view at our Western societies if you do not want to be left behind by what is on the move with globalization ? It is why free education is something important to have a skilled manpower able to put into manufactured products know how and a high level of technicity, the same for services.
    But they aren't doing well. If the US emulates the EU it will look like the EU and the EU, as a whole, is essentually in the fundamental equivalent of the Great Recession and has been for over a decade.

    You can't say the US will look a cherry picked part of the EU and omit, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc.

    I want our political economy to rather look like Switzerland actually. That makes sense. I find it bizarre that a Swiss guy is pointing to Scandinavia when you should be pointing to your own country.

  2. #82
    Member
    Joined
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    1809

    From
    Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    But they aren't doing well. If the US emulates the EU it will look like the EU and the EU, as a whole, is essentually in the fundamental equivalent of the Great Recession and has been for over a decade.

    You can't say the US will look a cherry picked part of the EU and omit, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc.

    I want our political economy to rather look like Switzerland actually. That makes sense. I find it bizarre that a Swiss guy is pointing to Scandinavia when you should be pointing to your own country.
    What do you know about social benefits in Switzerland ? What do you know about how the Swiss economy is run ? Even if Switzerland does not look like a socialist country, it provides to its inhabitants a lot of support in the field of education, health etc... like the Scandinavian countries, but with more autonomy for its actors and for the economy all actors are very close and work together with unions and the government. And if you mention Greece, Italy, Spain how many states in the USA are extremely poor like Alabama, Western Virginia etc.... Of course you prefer to look at the members of the EU, which actually are weak like Greece, Portugal and Spain, but from where are they coming form ? And you prefer to ignore Germany, Scandinavian countries, Holland etc..... which either with conservative or social-democrat majorities did well either alone or together. The real point is not what looks for you as socialist, or communist but what works and actually the USA with all their huge power are not performing well in many fields, like education, global health etc..... and do not seem able to go beyond frozen ideologies to find real solution for the future. Politically they prefer partisanship to sharing common vision of the well being of all their citizens. But the question is not to refer to a glorious past to find solutions for the future, but to build prospects for it on what is the reality you face. The British were able to to manage the decline of their Empire, but what are the USA actually doing in a positive way to fight the erosion of their influence ? The answer could have been soft power and Obama tried it with some success, but now with Trump ?

  3. #83
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,534
    Thanks
    1003

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by galatin View Post
    What do you know about social benefits in Switzerland ? What do you know about how the Swiss economy is run ? Even if Switzerland does not look like a socialist country, it provides to its inhabitants a lot of support in the field of education, health etc... like the Scandinavian countries, but with more autonomy for its actors and for the economy all actors are very close and work together with unions and the government. And if you mention Greece, Italy, Spain how many states in the USA are extremely poor like Alabama, Western Virginia etc.... Of course you prefer to look at the members of the EU, which actually are weak like Greece, Portugal and Spain, but from where are they coming form ? And you prefer to ignore Germany, Scandinavian countries, Holland etc..... which either with conservative or social-democrat majorities did well either alone or together. The real point is not what looks for you as socialist, or communist but what works and actually the USA with all their huge power are not performing well in many fields, like education, global health etc..... and do not seem able to go beyond frozen ideologies to find real solution for the future. Politically they prefer partisanship to sharing common vision of the well being of all their citizens. But the question is not to refer to a glorious past to find solutions for the future, but to build prospects for it on what is the reality you face. The British were able to to manage the decline of their Empire, but what are the USA actually doing in a positive way to fight the erosion of their influence ? The answer could have been soft power and Obama tried it with some success, but now with Trump ?
    A fair amount actually. EU countries really don't stack up well vis a vis US states at all. That includes Germany, I might add which would rank below 35th if stacked with US states.

    "The British were able to to manage the decline of their Empire, but what are the USA actually doing in a positive way to fight the erosion of their influence ? The answer could have been soft power and Obama tried it with some success, but now with Trump ?"

    I don't care, I want to be Switzwrland. We are about to gind out that being a $600bn a year military powerhouse doesn't mean shit if the other side has nuclear weapons. So really what's the point?

    The long and the short of it is that it actually nakes us poorer and much poorer I might add and when we stop we'll reap the benefits accordingly.
    Last edited by publius3; 12th October 2017 at 06:22 AM.

  4. #84
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    65,287
    Thanks
    45866

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    A fair amount actually. EU countries really don't stack up well vis a vis US states at all. That includes Germany, I might add which would rank below 35th if stacked with US states.
    Can you back that up with statistics and data?

  5. #85
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,752
    Thanks
    33472

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    I'm sure there are those who play the system like you describe here but they are damn few. Most unemployed want to work
    I agree. But we are a mobile country full of people mostly descended from people who made extreme moves in order to seek better opportunities. While 150 miles is too far to commute, it's not too far to move for a job or another opportunity. I've done it half a dozen times.

  6. #86
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,957
    Thanks
    24698

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I agree. But we are a mobile country full of people mostly descended from people who made extreme moves in order to seek better opportunities. While 150 miles is too far to commute, it's not too far to move for a job or another opportunity. I've done it half a dozen times.
    I imagine that's a lot harder to do anymore. People live paycheck to paycheck these days with almost no savings. So its not easy to just pack up and move. If you rent, chances are you are locked into a lease and if you own, you might owe more on your home than its worth. Plus a lot of companies don't accept resumes from out of area people. My son just graduated from college last year and I was shocked at how many emails he received saying "sorry but we don't pay relocation costs and you are out of our targeted area." I didn't know companies were doing that.
    Thanks from Babba and HCProf

  7. #87
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,752
    Thanks
    33472

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I imagine that's a lot harder to do anymore. People live paycheck to paycheck these days with almost no savings. So its not easy to just pack up and move. If you rent, chances are you are locked into a lease and if you own, you might owe more on your home than its worth. Plus a lot of companies don't accept resumes from out of area people. My son just graduated from college last year and I was shocked at how many emails he received saying "sorry but we don't pay relocation costs and you are out of our targeted area." I didn't know companies were doing that.
    If you actually look at statistics about "living paycheck to paycheck," our savings rate is BETTER now than in the past. Everything you say here was also true in the past, perhaps more so.

    I've moved hundreds or thousands of miles for school or work six times over the course of 35 years. The idea that the government should subsidize my living because I refuse to move just seems ludicrous to me. Fluidity of the job market is one of the competitive advantages of the US. Such a subsidy would destroy that advantage.

  8. #88
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    9,094
    Thanks
    2759

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    If you actually look at statistics about "living paycheck to paycheck," our savings rate is BETTER now than in the past. Everything you say here was also true in the past, perhaps more so.

    I've moved hundreds or thousands of miles for school or work six times over the course of 35 years. The idea that the government should subsidize my living because I refuse to move just seems ludicrous to me. Fluidity of the job market is one of the competitive advantages of the US. Such a subsidy would destroy that advantage.
    Savings rate better than in the past? Which past? Everything I've seen says we're saving nothing at all as a group, including for retirement.

    People in high paying jobs often have some options in terms of mobility. People in lower paying jobs do not. They cannot afford to move for some of the reasons cited, financial commitments to leases or mortgages being basically impossible to manage.

  9. #89
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,957
    Thanks
    24698

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    If you actually look at statistics about "living paycheck to paycheck," our savings rate is BETTER now than in the past. Everything you say here was also true in the past, perhaps more so.

    I've moved hundreds or thousands of miles for school or work six times over the course of 35 years. The idea that the government should subsidize my living because I refuse to move just seems ludicrous to me. Fluidity of the job market is one of the competitive advantages of the US. Such a subsidy would destroy that advantage.
    I haven't seen any studies or polls that claim savings is better. They all seem to indicate its far worse. 50% of Americans cant even raise $400 if needed.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ncy/106216294/
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-shame/476415/
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-am...gency-expense/
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...at-end-of-2016

  10. #90
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    30,411
    Thanks
    86

    From
    Tennessee
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    You consider not wanting to build a wall not wanting to do anything? I don't think even the extreme left doesn't want to do anything much less the rational left.


    That is like none of yours or mines business, why do you feel that it is?
    The thread is about extreme views of the left

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12th October 2017, 02:03 PM
  2. Adolf Hitler - extreme left winged socialist
    By Rob Larrikin in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 674
    Last Post: 29th September 2017, 12:39 AM
  3. Extreme Rightwing Policies Sweeping The South
    By ARMCX1 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 17th January 2014, 07:03 AM
  4. Replies: 118
    Last Post: 17th May 2013, 03:08 AM
  5. Ron Paul's extreme domestic policies would impoverish many
    By Buddha86 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 23rd November 2007, 07:17 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed