16 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimoNo. I'm just not going to waste my time on every single one of your insignificant little "posts for posting's sake". While some people here are quite capable of asking me questions I cannot really answer, you - generalissimo - let me assure you, are not one of them.
So you're going to be selective about questions because you can't answer some of them.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimo... However, it would be a generalisation to label it all as "synergy between socialism and capitalism", government interference varies from country to country, some (like the US) have less interference than the UK (for example), which makes some more capitalist than others, the majority of countries could be described as a functioning capitalist country.
yes, the government sets the rules, and should have owndership of some facilities in order to care for those who cannot afford to go private. However, it would be a generalisation to label it all as "synergy between socialism and capitalism"...
It's not a generalisation. It is a description of reality that applies to all democracies. You cut the word "compromises" I notice. But I don't really care if you're trying to misrepresent me in your response. What does it really matter after all?
Just because the US shares some of the features found in socialist countries doesn't mean the US is just another social democracy variant ...
It absolutely does. Sorry. I even explained exactly why it does. You have simply contradicted it. Good for you.
the differences are huge between the US and N.Korea for example.
What has N.Korea got to do with "social democracy" and "capitalism", or even "democracy"? This makes you look very very foolish generalissimo.
the US could still be considered an example of a functioning capitalist system, because the degree of intervention is still small if compared to other countries in europe or asia.
I disagree. The degree of intervention in the U.S. is plenty big enough for us to be able to say that all democracies, including the U.S., callibrate and settle on their own compromises and balance between elements of "socialism" and elements of "capitalism". It's a nonsense to define "capitalism" as whatever the "most capitalistic" system is like. It's also nonsense to ignore, as eljefejesus does, what the U.S. brand of "capitalism" did to Latin America for a century or two and then downplay the enormous significance of social democracy replacing U.S. payrolled junta and death squads.
There is no fully functioning pure "capitalist" system up and running in the world today. Everything out there (at least among the democracies) is effectively a social democracy of one degree or another.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFcut the crap FMF, just admit you can't answer my questions.
No. I'm just not going to waste my time on every single one of your insignificant little "posts for posting's sake". While some people here are quite capable of asking me questions I cannot really answer, you - generalissimo - let me assure you, are not one of them.
there is no need to hide behind that holier-than-thou position.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFIt's not a generalisation
[b] ... However, it would be a generalisation to label it all as "synergy between socialism and capitalism", government interference varies from country to country, some (like the US) have less interference than the UK (for example), which makes some more capitalist than others, the majority of countries could be described as a functioning capitalist country.[/b ...[text shortened]... cracies) is effectively a social democracy of one degree or another.
yes, it is.
It is a description of reality that applies to all democracies.
not necessarily.
What has N.Korea got to do with "social democracy" and "capitalism", or even "democracy"?
I used n.korea as an example of a place where there is litte economic freedom.
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimo"yes it is". "Not necessariloy". Mere gainsay. Nadiresque. You are unable to keep your composure.
[b]It's not a generalisation
yes, it is.
It is a description of reality that applies to all democracies.
not necessarily.
What has N.Korea got to do with "social democracy" and "capitalism", or even "democracy"?
I used n.korea as an example of a place where there is litte economic freedom.[/b]
And what has N.Korea got to do with our discussion?
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFYes, the US has elements of socialism, but it is a gross generalisation to claim it is at the same level as venezuela (example).
I disagree. The degree of intervention in the U.S. is plenty big enough for us to be able to say that all democracies, including the U.S., callibrate and settle on their own compromises and balance between elements of "socialism" and elements of "capitalism". It's a nonsense to define "capitalism" as whatever the "most capitalistic" system is like. It's also nonse ...[text shortened]... ormous significance of social democracy replacing U.S. payrolled junta and death squads.
It's a nonsense to define "capitalism" as whatever the "most capitalistic" system is like.
so what are you suppose to say? could you say that the country with most economic freedom is the most capitalistic?
It's also nonsense to ignore, as eljefejesus does, what the U.S. brand of "capitalism" did to Latin America for a century or two and then downplay the enormous significance of social democracy replacing U.S. payrolled junta and death squads.
Does eljefejesus ignore US influence on latin america?
How exactly does social democracy repel death squads?
16 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMF"yes it is". "Not necessariloy". Mere gainsay. Nadiresque. You are unable to keep your composure.
"yes it is". "Not necessariloy". Mere gainsay. Nadiresque. You are unable to keep your composure.
And what has N.Korea got to do with our discussion?
so what?
And what has N.Korea got to do with our discussion?
I told you, it was an example of a place where there is little economic freedom.