Do you think the Euriopean Union is a Fascist State?
- Thread starter greg334
- Start date
Ya know it does not matter what we think of them over there..it is their concern...the US should be more concerned about itself....
If the people over there go with it and they are, by and by happy with it....so be it....if works for them good for them....because whatever we have here sure ain't workin....
It's their country. But no socialist nation can in my opinion be free, due to the need for these controls. And, also in my opinion, these same controls preclude long-term economic success as well by increasingly interfering with the supply/demand/growth cycle. So, while I respect their choice, I don't have a lot of hope for Europe's future.
Look around...those controls are here as well...
Europe hasn't suffered the severe fate the US has because of some of them controls....
Them are controls here...only more subtle....
And ..Define controls?
Wouldn't you say..letting the foxes run the hen house here...because of lack of controls hasn't hurt somewhat?
Europe hasn't suffered the severe fate the US has because of some of them controls....
Them are controls here...only more subtle....
And ..Define controls?
Wouldn't you say..letting the foxes run the hen house here...because of lack of controls hasn't hurt somewhat?
Exactly! But many people here seemed to be concerned with what Europeans think of us.
By JEFFREY FLEISHMAN, Los Angeles Times
CAIRO - The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama may have stunned Americans. But in Europe, where the winner is chosen and people prefer their superpowers to seek consensus, it is far less surprising that the committee would bestow its honor on a U.S. president who speaks of global cooperation.
To European eyes, it matters most that Obama is not former President George W. Bush.
The Bush years were scarring for Europe, a time when the continent felt that the United States was betraying its moral standing by going to war in Iraq, torturing terrorism suspects and engaging in other policies Europeans found discordant with the United States it thought it knew. In the decades since World War II, the continent often disagreed with Washington concerning issues. The Bush administration offended Europe with its unilateralism and swagger.
Although he is new to world affairs with only a light record of accomplishment, Obama represents Europe's vision of what this country should be. He comes across as conciliatory, open to dialogue and committed to engaging not only Europe, but also the far and troubled reaches of the world.
Many U.S. conservatives disparage this as weakness. But in Oslo, where the Nobel Committee of one male and four female Norwegian politicians selected Obama, these are the qualities that have been too long missing in the White House.
The committee members "are 'right-thinking' Scandinavians who exemplify liberal internationalist traditions," said Stewart Patrick, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who was a guest research fellow at the Norwegian Nobel Institute in 1993.
"My gut instinct is that, if they could have given the Nobel Prize to the American people for electing somebody other than George W. Bush, they would've done so.
"Whether we should take that seriously is another matter. It's a somewhat Olympian view."
The mythology of Mount Olympus -- of gods anointing mortals -- comes to mind in the committee's citation.
If you check closely, you'll find that Europe's bank problems are roughly 2.5 times as severe as those in the US, on a per-unit basis. Ambrose Evans Pritchard, a noted London commentator, has been repeatedly pointing this out for over a year now, but our press seems highly reluctant to pick up the story. (Here's his home page-- look about a year back in particular.)
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard - Finance and business comments - Telegraph
In their case, they invested in bubbling real estate mostly in Spain, London, and Eastern Europe. They haven't any more hope of getting their money back than our banks do, and have in many cases been bailed out as well. (Pritchard says they're being much less cooperative and constructive than US banks.) They accepted _far_ higher asset-ratio risks, particularly in Germany and France. Also, I'll mention in passing Iceland's banking collapse. So, whatever regulations might be needed, I won't look towards Socialists for answers. (In fact, I blame socialism and economic liberalism for the core cause of this whole crisis, the imbalance in trade between West and East. But that's another subject for another day.)
The kinds of Socialist controls I referred to in my original post are so large and all-encompassing in scale that it's difficult to even perceive them. As a Libertarian, I'd in general define them as those that prevent ordinary people from buying, selling, and thinking as they choose. They range from prohibiting the use of certain kinds of light bulbs to minimum wage laws. Each of these acts as a "brake" on the expression of the free market and free individuals, and thus on economic prosperity. In some cases restrictions are absolutely vital despite the economic damage-- pouring thousands of tons of arsenic into the upper Mississippi _needs_ to be illegal, for example. Others, such as socialized health care in my opinion, are self-defeating and reduce general prosperity by ensuring that we can never compete effectively on the international market. Some, like the prohibition of certain narcotics, are so "gray" as to be endlessly debatable.
The core problem with socialism is that in accepting the role of the government as the maintainer of the social safety net, one must also empower them to enforce a given morality on _everyone_. Thus, via regulation we work our way from disproportionate taxation of the rich (simple theft, in my worldview) to declaring that children can't be raised by parents with obnoxious (and invariably anti-socialist) opinions to vilifying and destroying the careers of scientists whose research doesn't support certain government-selected truisms, like, say, the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Socialism thereby fosters economic, intellectual and even military stagnation and impotence via regulatory and moral strangulation. Socialism presumes that government makes better and wiser decisions than individuals _and demands the power to overrule said individuals_, where people like me think that quite the opposite is true. The ultimate result of a long series of inevitably inferior and arrogant decisions is totalitarianistic decay, followed by collapse if the process isn't at some point stopped. Don't believe me? Try to raise a child in Canada who doesn't agree with the government's moral position on core issues like gay rights. It was only about two years back that I read about the government there taking away someone's children because the parents were extreme right-wingers. (They were essentially Nazis, minus the racial beliefs.) Socialism requires the setting of national goals, and an enforcement mechanism to require everyone to support and work towards said goals. If that's not the essence of totalitarianism, I don't know what is. Libertarians like myself believe that people need to set their _own_ goals, within the widest possible limits.
Socialists, in my opinion, would've fought like wildcats against the introduction of the steam engine on the grounds that it'd put millions out of work, pollute, and lead to widespread economic and sociological turmoil. Certainly the unions would've done all they could to block it, and so would the enviro groups. In today's world they'd have succeeded, and the entire Industrial Revolution it spawned with all it meant for human empowerment and growth, would never have happened. How many similar revolutions in human growth and potential will _today's_ Socialists block?
Far too many, I fear.
Much to the chagrin of many..This country has been socialist .....when the first SS check was issued
When the first welfare check was cashed
When food stamps were printed
When Medicare was started
When Unemployment insurance was formed.
All government controlled and sanctioned.
The U.S.S.A
United Socialist States of America
When the first welfare check was cashed
When food stamps were printed
When Medicare was started
When Unemployment insurance was formed.
All government controlled and sanctioned.
The U.S.S.A
United Socialist States of America
Much to the chagrin of many..This country has been socialist .....when the first SS check was issued
When the first welfare check was cashed
When food stamps were printed
When Medicare was started
When Unemployment insurance was formed.
All government controlled and sanctioned.
The U.S.S.A
United Socialist States of America
Amen. It's why I've devoted my life, knowing full well that it was almost certainly a losing cause, to eliminating all of the above. (If you want unemployment insurance, buy it on the private market. Don't make _me_ buy it too!)
Every time I hear some Leftie claim that this _must_ be about race, I want to go insane with rage. 98% or more of them have no idea whatsoever what the intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of this conflict are all about.
<sigh>.
Even worse, I expect that's true of the Right as well.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Much to the chagrin of many..This country has been socialist .....when the first SS check was issued
When the first welfare check was cashed
When food stamps were printed
When Medicare was started
When Unemployment insurance was formed.
All government controlled and sanctioned.
The U.S.S.A
United Socialist States of America
Anyone who knows anything about howthe economic systems of nations work knows that both "market capitalism" and " command socialism" are in reality, just theories. If you look at the economic systems that currently exist in the world today on a lineal basis with capitalism on one end of the spectrum and socialism on the other, you will find that every nation's economic system falls somewhere in between. There is no such thing as a totally capitalist nation nor is there any such thing as a totally socialist nation. You can take all the socialist programs that have been implemented in the U.S. thus far, and then some, and we are still the most capitalist nation on earth.