<p>
</p>
<p>Move to Europe then. They are content with their life and socialism is ok by them. But there is a reason why America is so great. We work harder than any other country in the world and it shows. There would be no desire to work that hard in a socialist country. </p>
<p>FWIW, I love Obama so don’t read this as a bashing Obama post. Just that people usually would connect my post with Obama bashing for some dumb reason.</p>
<p>^ Americans actually way overestimate their work hours. Looking at other post-industrial countries, American’s work hours are in the middle.</p>
<p>19% of US GDP is government spending, we’re more socialist than Sweden, it’s OK, stay here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree being a superpower is fairly useless when the world is at peace. I wouldn’t mind living in Sweden right now. But come back to me when Europe is at war in 20…40…60 years. I’ll sure be glad I don’t have bombs landing in my backyard or that I’m forced into physical labor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. 30 years ago that was the case. Currently Americans work about 30-40% more than the average European.</p>
<p>Lots of taxes, basically.</p>
<p>Typical American work week: 40 hours (8 - 5)
Typical European work week: 35 hours (9 - 5)</p>
<p>Plus Europeans get like 2-3 extra weeks of vacation time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Typical American vacation time: 2 weeks
Typical European vacation time: 4-6 weeks</p>
<p>Hahaha. Hatersunite kind of beat me to it.</p>
<p>heres an explanation of socialism which was forwarded to me by email :</p>
<p>"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.</p>
<p>That class had insisted that socialism worked, and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, that it was the great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade.” (So no one would fail and no one would receive an A.)
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. </p>
<p>The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. </p>
<p>As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. </p>
<p>When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. </p>
<p>All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."</p>
<p>Socialism works, and works very well, if properly applied. Scandinavia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Germany and several other countries have achieved some of the highest standards of living in the World adhering to socialistic principles.</p>
<p>well obviously people in socialist countries work, the unemployment rate in Scandinavia is lower than it is here.</p>
<p>Wow. My health teacher tried to make that rationalization. Socialism isn’t Harrison Bergeron or 1984 (Vonnegut and Orwell were both Socialists). It’s stupid to assume that everyone is EXACTLY the same, and socialism doesn’t do that. Participatory economics takes into account different tastes, levels of ability, etc., without reverting to capitalism. It might surprise you how hard people will work for a common good when their government isn’t telling them to “go out and shop”.</p>
<p>Quote:
What is PURE capitalism? </p>
<p>= Anarchy</p>
<p>That’s pretty wrong, unless you’re talking about Ayn Rand. PURE, unrestricted capitalism (neoliberalism) would probably result in huge corporations like Wal-Mart taking over most of the economy. Completely “free trade” would mean bigger nations can essentially take over the assets of smaller ones for their own gain. </p>
<p>Most anarchists are socialists, and those that aren’t (“free market anarchists”) are something closer to libertarians (Glenn Beck, anyone?) Anarchy is perfected communism. That is, it doesn’t use the state as a tool to undermine capitalism (since once a group attains power - the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ - it’s unlikely they’ll give it up), but seeks direct participation in government. In the ideal anarchist state, power is locally centered, with representatives who are directly accountable to their constituents.</p>
<p>Oh, and in Europe, people don’t MIND paying slightly more taxes. The rich are still rich, and the poor don’t die because they can’t afford to go to an ER.</p>
<p>To the person who told me to move to europe
I PLAN ON IT</p>
<p>The US doesn’t “work harder” than any other country
We just exploit the common man in order for a few(think Enron) to get wealthy
It’s a sick system
Government is supposed to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves…not let industry take every last penny they’ve got…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anarchy is just no government. While it’s true that anarchists have usually been left wing, neocons have also been trending in that direction (“Government isn’t the answer, it’s the problem”). Truly free trade (pure capitalism) does require there to be no government at all.</p>
<p>Socialism can work if it’s applied properly. I believe many Americans perceive socialism similar to communism (which never worked). Americans take pride on being different from the rest of the world (even if the policies are not the best). Americans also take pride on having certain rights (just think of former president FDR’s famous four freedoms speech: freedom of religion and expression; freedom of speech; freedom from want; freedom from fear). </p>
<p>While Western Europe has achieved some of the highest standards of living in the world, many highly-educated middle-class families are actually leaving the region because they cannot afford the high taxes. They perceive Canada, Australia, and the United States (and even some parts of Latin America) as more affordable. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom has declined as a great place to live since the mid-1990s.</p>
<p>We don’t have various competing fire brigades, choosing one and paying a fee.</p>
<p>Health care for all just needs to be thought of in the way we think of other services for all: public education, road building, police, fire, flood protection.</p>
<p>“Unfortunately, the United Kingdom has declined as a great place to live since the mid-1990s.”</p>
<p>And the U.S. has improved? ;)</p>
<p>Have a look at [Mercer</a> Quality of Living global city rankings 2009](<a href=“http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1173105]Mercer”>http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1173105)
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well this is wrong. In the U.S. the government works for us. We don’t work for the government.</p>
<p>Plus, the common American lives a much better life than the common (fill in any other nationality here). There are poor people and there are rich people in this country. But our middle class beats any middle class anywhere else on earth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As mentioned, all of these countries are small and content with their current position. They are not striving for anything. Therefore they are completely mediocre. Socialism clearly would not work in the U.S.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You sure about that? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You sure about that too? Let’s think together on this.</p>