Capitalism and Democracy. What do YOU think?

xm15e3

I think this thread is getting off track since it didn't start by defining Democracy or Capitalism. Both of which have become abstractions with meanings dependant on the context (political orientation) of the argument.

Democracy by definition is Majority rules, and implies absolutely no minority rights. This, of course is a bad thing with potentially evil results. A Pure democracy will not coexist long with private property rights and therefore will destroy a free market economy. Envy, unfortunately, is part of human nature.

Notice, the World Socialist/Communist organizations are always pushing for "democracy", all they need is 51% to agree on taking the property of the other 49%, not a difficult task.

The term Capitalism was dreamt of by either Marx or Eingles (can't remember which) and is a strawman argument against private industry. We were all taught the same Capital, labor, and Entrepreneurs gig. This implies a class of Entrepreneurs that own capital and use labor for their own material gain. This description is flawed since it does not recognize Labor as Capital and Workers as Entrepreneurs. In reality, everyone is a Capitalist-Entrepreneur under a free market, with their labor/skills being a valuable asset for the creation of wealth for themselves and those who pay them.

Now, what most everyone implies by the term "Democracy" is a government that accepts and protects varying degrees of private property and human rights, and has democratically elected officials. It's compatibility with a free market system is dependant on it's acceptance of private property rights.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
does Capitalism look after the interests of the people who empower the government that runs the system?

Capitalism, or free market, isn't run by the government. Or, at least, not effectively. However, since it is the people using their abilities to provide for their needs, it has historically provided much higher standard and qualitity of living than any command economy.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Meh
The trouble is that any centrally planned economy appears to have a tendency towards stagnation and totalitarianism. I'm not aware of any socialist ecomomies that have managed to avoid these problems.

Freaking A Right! And that gets to the core of the problem with Socialism and the strength of Free Markets. Human nature cannot handle the power that Socialism, Communism, Nazism ect give to small groups of individuals.

Free Markets function due to human nature. It is a system that occurs whenever humans are left to their own devices. All a government has to do is protect the right of it's constituents to private property and free association. Socialism is something that has to be imposed. It is theft, based on lies, enforced by murder.

I would argue that the failings of the Free Market (Unions, Monopolies, Trusts, and the Great Depression) are the results of government intervention into the free market, or the failure to protect property and free association.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sand
Despite the fact education is probably better funded than ever - some people still believe communism is viable, so obviously more money isnt helping.

If you are not a US citizen already, please move here, we need more like you.

Éomer of Rohan

And that gets to the core of the problem with Socialism and the strength of Free Markets. Human nature cannot handle the power that Socialism, Communism, Nazism ect give to small groups of individuals.

Do you really understand the concepts about which you speak? Nazism and command economy are totally opposite since Nazism ultimately relies on a more extreme form of capitalism; with the breaking of trade unions to suppress workers rights and what we term 'big business in bed with the government' changed to 'big business running the government or vice versa.' Command Economy on the other hand (an idea that the Soviets failed to properly implement as I will lay out) is the trade unions effectively running trade in collusion with one another in the interests of the workers (trade unions naturally being democratically elected and decentralised, thus in a better position to know what the country and it's people need); in the USSR the government took on this job, something it was not equipped top handle especially when the policies of liberalisation came around - the government was just too burdened by social welfare policies to survive the dog eat dog economy that Reagan and Tahtcher unleashed. As for China, well what we are seeing is the change-over from a governmental/bureaucratically inefficient economy to a fully capitalist economy - but it is important to note at this point that the chinese economy is still suffering from the amount of money they spend on public welfare etc.

Free Markets function due to human nature. It is a system that occurs whenever humans are left to their own devices

Once again I point out that this system will always create winners and losers; consider the distribution of wealth in the world; the top MNE's now have bigger budgets than 75% of nations, and when we consider that such companies lay off staff without a second thought (consider the situation with General Motors for example in Flint, Michigan) we see that this is wrong; government should have the werewhithal to protect their people, something they do not have under truly neo liberal 'free market' economics.

I think this thread is getting off track since it didn't start by defining Democracy or Capitalism. Both of which have become abstractions with meanings dependant on the context (political orientation) of the argument

Surely you will understand that ultimately everything defined by a human being is an abstraction? Such is the nature of philosphy - the same philosophy which then goes on to form pragmatic approaches to problems.

The term Capitalism was dreamt of by either Marx or Eingles (can't remember which) and is a strawman argument against private industry. We were all taught the same Capital, labor, and Entrepreneurs gig.

At least get the facts right; capitalism was discussed using that term long before Marx; in fact Capitalism was widely recognised as the bourgeois (equites if you wish to define them) class answer to feudalism. That much was assumed as early as Hegel and Nietzhe.

Now, what most everyone implies by the term "Democracy" is a government that accepts and protects varying degrees of private property and human rights, and has democratically elected officials

No, thay may be however what people accept by the term 'modern capitalist democracy.' What's more, democracy does not always protect human rights. Unless that is, you wish t consider America, Britain and France as undemocratic. Which, in the indirect, modern sense of the word, they are not. The 'Soviet' (Council) idea of government is also a democracy technically, though only in theory since it was not fully applied.

Development fuelled by capitalism has made even the poorest in Western societies better off than the richest of previous generations

That is relative for in such days, a hundred pounds sterling was considered ample wages for a year. As to the example you gave with respect to advances in living standards, I have already discussed in detail how medical and technological breakthroughs were not always the result of a capitalist system but often the result of 'social democracy' - the politically 'acceptable' brand of socialism/communism.

the World Socialist/Communist organizations are always pushing for "democracy", all they need is 51% to agree on taking the property of the other 49%, not a difficult task.

If you are going to cite ridiculous statistics, I suggest you find a neutral source which will support them. What I would really like to know is can you actually name any such organisations without having to look up the net?

A Pure democracy will not coexist long with private property rights and therefore will destroy a free market economy

So what you are in fact saying is that you would prefer a capitalist democracy to a 'pure' democracy? So in fact what you are saying is that Capitalism and 'pure' democracy are mutually exclusive?

Sand

The wage demands and strikes etc are because not enough is being paid and work conditions and hours are long; in effect these address an imbalance rather than seek more money for the sake of it.

Exactly- theyre doing their job for the money and they want more money to continue doing their jobs. Very few of them are doing so out of any sense of civic duty or else theyd simply accept what they were given , content they were doing a service for society and require no further reward beyond enough to live on - and theyre still living so one assumes they have enough.

People tend to go for the best job they can, usually the one that pays most. Nobody works because they want to. I dont mind my work, its a better job than a lot of people have but I certainly have no confusion over what I like doing.

With regard to people having no ambition / no qualifications / no application (by which I assume you mean they are lazy?). Everyone has some goal in life - that goal may not be much to you, for example if your goal was to make pots of cash but it is their goal and so we should not denigrate it.

True, but if someones goal is to sweep streets then they shouldnt complain when they get a street sweepers wage. If people dont have the ambition or application to educate themselves they shouldnt complain when they get the jobs best suited to their education - working at mcdonalds or working at tescos.

I am going to be an arts graduate. What is your point? Academic snobbery perchance? From someone with an interest in politics? Do I detect hypocrisy?

No offence friend, but Id imagine you as a left winger arent unique by a long shot in being an arts student. The only connection politics has to arts is the large amount of arts wasters fufilling the rent a protest student stereotype. To be blunt I view arts courses to be a pure waste of time, there simply to give wasters dossing their way through college on the taxpayers back something to show at the end of their course - regardless of the fact it is wholly economically useless for the vast majority of arts courses. Ive no problem with someone taking up an arts course as a hobby - I like history, and indeed spent a lot of time I should have been studying for my exams reading far too many history tomes, its a hobby though not a career prospect - they pay for themselves but I see no return for the taxpayer in funding dossers taking up arts courses. You probably dont like hearing that but I cant honestly help that.

And as to your pathetic attempt to attack the credibility of a system, well, I'll be charitable - you cannot say that it is not viable since you have no evidence.

Every time a communist takes power theyve become a totalarian control freak, regardless of their good intentions in the beginning. After stubborn defence of their ascended colleague the left then disavows them, saying theyre not really communist and next time well get it right yadayada.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Do you really understand the concepts about which you speak? Nazism and command economy are totally opposite since Nazism ultimately relies on a more extreme form of capitalism ...

What part of National Socialism do you not understand? Or do you not want to acknowledge?

I do know that Nationalist Ireland has a fine tradition of Socialism, sympathy for Nazi Germany, and now anti-Semitism. All of which in inexplicable, especially the anti-Semitism since you have more in common with Israeli Jews than the PLO (which also has ties to the Nazi).

Once again I point out that this system will always create winners and losers; consider the distribution of wealth in the world; the top MNE's now have bigger budgets than 75% of nations.... ...

So What? And good for them. Creating wealth is a good thing, they also made other rich in the process. Your "ridiculous statistic" of 75% would be much smaller if so many hadn't bought Karl's line of BS. By the way, what is your unbiased source?

Surely you will understand that ultimately everything defined by a human being is an abstraction? Such is the nature of philosophy - the same philosophy which then goes on to form pragmatic approaches to problems.

Surely you're joking. Words have meaning. It doesn't depend on what the word "is" is.

At least get the facts right; capitalism was discussed using that term long before Marx; in fact Capitalism was widely recognized as the bourgeois (equites if you wish to define them) class answer to feudalism. That much was assumed as early as Hegel and Nietzhe.

That you might be right about the origin of term, however it is still fairly meaningless. It's a nice word to represent evil corporate board members, and repressed workers, or whatever emotional image you want to project. But in reality it is meaningless, other than the act of using capital to produce wealth. And then the Socialists are Capitalists. Collectivism vs. Individualism might be better terms.

No, they may be however what people accept by the term 'modern capitalist democracy.' What's more, democracy does not always protect human rights. Unless that is, you wish t consider America, Britain and France as undemocratic. Which, in the indirect, modern sense of the word, they are not. The 'Soviet' (Council) idea of government is also a democracy technically, though only in theory since it was not fully applied.

[

That is my point, democracy does not protect human rights, in fact is in principle counter to human rights. America is NOT a democracy (thank God, otherwise AL Gore would be president).

That is relative for in such days, a hundred pounds sterling was considered ample wages for a year. As to the example you gave with respect to advances in living standards, I have already discussed in detail how medical and technological breakthroughs were not always the result of a capitalist system but often the result of 'social democracy' - the politically 'acceptable' brand of socialism/communism.

You've also discussed how the world would be better off if it were destroyed by Al Quida. You need to choose your enemies better. As for standard/quality of living, name a socialist state that has exceeded the US in prosperity.

If you are going to cite ridiculous statistics, I suggest you find a neutral source which will support them. What I would really like to know is can you actually name any such organizations without having to look up the net?

Uh, what? Read that again. 51% is a majority, that is a definition, not abstract, and not a statistic.

So what you are in fact saying is that you would prefer a capitalist democracy to a 'pure' democracy? So in fact what you are saying is that Capitalism and 'pure' democracy are mutually exclusive?

Capitalist Democracy? No I would prefer a Constitutional Republic that is based on the ideal that humans have the inaliable right to life, liberty, and private property. That means guns, LOTS OF GUNS!

Yes, pure democracy and private property (Free Market) are effectively mutually exclusive, but only due to human nature. This also accepts human nature in unchangeable, and distinct contrast to socialist ideals.

Éomer of Rohan

I must admit I had a real laugh reading those last two posts, one from Sand and the other from xm15e3. I must confess, it comes as no surprise that xm15e3 is a republican and what's more willingly admits he is glad of the corruption in America that allowed GWB in to power. We really need more people like you mate.

You've also discussed how the world would be better off if it were destroyed by Al Quida

Let me reiterate this point. I think in general terms that the population of the world would benefit from a complete cessation of US influence. Period. If this happens to involve the US being obliterated or returning to isolationist policies because they had their asses whipped, I don't particularly care.

As to the rest of your argument, really, you are an unapologetic right wing fool and I don't intent to waste my time.

As to Sand;

Exactly- theyre doing their job for the money and they want more money to continue doing their jobs. Very few of them are doing so out of any sense of civic duty or else theyd simply accept what they were given , content they were doing a service for society and require no further reward beyond enough to live on - and theyre still living so one assumes they have enough.

I think you misunderstood the point....

in effect these address an imbalance rather than seek more money for the sake of it

by which I mean that everyone alive, whether I like it or not lives in this society which at present depends on money generated by wage labour - thus these nurses et al depend on the money so generated to survive and hence my point about redressing an imbalance.

No offence friend, but Id imagine you as a left winger arent unique by a long shot in being an arts student. The only connection politics has to arts is the large amount of arts wasters fufilling the rent a protest student stereotype. To be blunt I view arts courses to be a pure waste of time, there simply to give wasters dossing their way through college on the taxpayers back something to show at the end of their course - regardless of the fact it is wholly economically useless for the vast majority of arts courses. Ive no problem with someone taking up an arts course as a hobby - I like history, and indeed spent a lot of time I should have been studying for my exams reading far too many history tomes, its a hobby though not a career prospect - they pay for themselves but I see no return for the taxpayer in funding dossers taking up arts courses. You probably dont like hearing that but I cant honestly help that.

Sorry for the large quote. Call me dave, if you don't mind. I completely disagree with you because although I am preparing to study for an arts degree, I am far from a waster - three of my four (and a half lol - bloody A/S system) a - levels are sciences; Biology Chemistry and Physics which I achieved ABB in so far. I would just like to quote Cicero on this - "He who knows nothing of his past will remain for ever a child." I think that Arts do have value and the only reason I am taking an arts degree, as opposed to medicine (which I am very eligible for) was because it boils down to which I preferred as a career rather than which I would earn more money at. But each to their own yes? It would not be a bad idea to start a thread on that since it does have political ramifications - you obviously hold your views strongly no?

Every time a communist takes power theyve become a totalitarian control freak, regardless of their good intentions in the beginning. After stubborn defence of their ascended colleague the left then disavows them, saying theyre not really communist and next time well get it right yadayada

Since you read history (though you neglected to mention what period so I am making a few assumptions here) I would ask you if you understand the social dynamic behind the change from idealism to totalitarianism. To answer whatever questions ANYONE here has in that respect, I suggest reading Trotsky's pamphlet on 'Bolshevism and Stalinism' which can probably be found on any decent socialist website. Trotsky wrote this when there was only one such state and proceeded to successfully interpret the social changes and powers manifestations that led in succession to the multitude of Stalinist states we know now; in fact the left wing is clearly divided on this topic; Stalinists defend their regimes yet the rest of the left disavow them (though this part, to which I belong never supported them in the first place as a result of Trotsky's dictum.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

Let me reiterate this point. I think in general terms that the population of the world would benefit from a complete cessation of US influence. Period. If this happens to involve the US being obliterated or returning to isolationist policies because they had their asses whipped, I don't particularly care.

Clearly, if you ever go for election in this country, Éomer you won't be canvassing, out in Intel, IBM or indeed for the votes of at least a third of this country then, who get paid either from a U.S company or indirectly benefit from their presence here.
mm

mike65

I think the posts by the left here
merely point up how the left can't quite belive they lost the argument.

Mike.

shotamoose

Originally posted by xm15e3
If you are not a US citizen already, please move here, we need more like you.

I second that. The first part, anyway.:D

xm15e3

If you are going to suggest that a the world would be better off if a nation of 240 million were destroyed, please, support your point. These are my family and friends you want wasted. Grow some balls and tell me why I should die for the betterment of the world.

Once you start attacking the credibility of the person you are debating, you are pretty much telling the world you are clueless and wrong. "Right Wing Fool" is not a argument. So back it up.

Arrogance is a symptom of ignorance. If you actually believe GWB gained the presidency by corruption, you have no understanding of the division of power in the US, or recent election history.

Here's a clue: Only the Senate and House of Reps are elected by popular vote (as designed, only the House of Reps is, the Senate was to be elected by the House). Presidents are to be elected by the several states through the electoral college. The Federal gov. was designed to keep the states in check, there was to be NO direct elections or taxation of the people by the Fed Gov.

The election of Al Gore would have violated the re-count laws of Florida State, and that would have negated the Florida electoral vote. GWB would have one either way. We have rule of law for a reason.

As for history, look up Mayor Daly, Chicago Machine Politics, or "Vote Early and Often", the Dems are pioneers in election fraud. As you're buddy Lenin mused, "it's not who votes, it's who counts the votes."

If you really think Sands needs a reading list, might I suggest you put down Mao's little red book and check out: The Black Book of Communism, Radical Son, Conscience of a Conservative, Sword and Shield, or anything by Daniel Lapin, Thomas Sowell, or the Big Daddy himself, Von Mises.

You can file it under "know your enemy"

shotamoose

Originally posted by mike65
I think the posts by the left here
merely point up how the left can't quite belive they lost the argument.

Mike.

I think posts by people who just dismiss the views of others as 'typical lefitism' or simillar rather than actually engaging with them shows a complete poverty of imagination. Post something with some content.

Lennoxschips

Inevitably, the Soviet Union is always cited by the defenders of capitalism as an example of socialism failing. However, the Soviet Union was never a socialist state, the Soviet Union was nothing more than a dictatorship.

We in Ireland owe our good fortune to the success of socialist ideals. The past 10-15 years has seen phenomenal growth in countries such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal. This is due almost wholly to the EU development funds, which have helped get the aforementioned countries back on their feet again when they were down. The richer EU nations gave to the poorer EU nations, and everyone is better off for it. Thanks to the continued development of the poorer EU nations, the EU as a whole has grown stronger, and this has benefitted the richer nations as well. Growing stronger together, by sharing.

While I am the first to agree that the EU is a fairly bureaucratic organisation, you have to give credit where credit is due: The EU development/structural funds are an example of one of socialism's roaring successes.

I find it disappointing that so many people in this country are still willing to preach the hard-line capitalist mantra, when we owe so much of our success and prosperity to the socialist ideals of mainland Europe and its EU policies.

If you're into capitalism, then spend a few years in the USA. But don't get sick, it'll cost ya. Don't think about going to college or sending your kids to college, you'll have to sell the house to pay for it. We may moan about taxes over here, but it works out better for the country in the long run.

shotamoose

Countries in Latin America have repeatedly voted socialist governments into power, and they've repeatedly had capitalist governments forced upon them at the butt of a gun. It's still happening today. So capitalism is most certainly not universally linked with freedom. And maybe this is one reason why socialist states so often fail or sink into totalitarianism - because every time one arises, or is voted into existence, whole nations (whole civilisations, some of them probably believe) do their damndest to isolate, undermine and attack it. They impose trade sanctions, fund vicious paramilitary and guerilla groups, install client dictators, and so on. And why? I can only think they're afraid of something.

I do know that Nationalist Ireland has a fine tradition of Socialism, sympathy for Nazi Germany, and now anti-Semitism. All of which in inexplicable, especially the anti-Semitism since you have more in common with Israeli Jews than the PLO (which also has ties to the Nazi).

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Ireland's got a crap socialist tradition, and anti-semitism was a lot stronger in the early 20th century than it is now (I've never once witnessed any anti-semitism in Ireland in my short lifetime). As for supporting Nazi Germany, that's an easy slur to throw but to my knowledge our 'support' extended to Devalera sending commiserations on the death of Hitler. Big swing. I can safely say that the United States has supported far many more dictators than Ireland has, and explicitly so, too.

Once again I point out that this system will always create winners and losers; consider the distribution of wealth in the world; the top MNE's now have bigger budgets than 75% of nations...

So What? And good for them. Creating wealth is a good thing, they also made other rich in the process. Your "ridiculous statistic" of 75% would be much smaller if so many hadn't bought Karl's line of BS. By the way, what is your unbiased source?

The point I think he's making (though the statistic is incorrect, as far as I know), is that free market capitalism without government regulation leads to concentration of market power in fewer and fewer hands, thus distorting both markets and democratic processes. The agro-food, pharmaceutical, aerospace and IT sectors, to name a few, are dominated by a handful of global giants who are better able to employ predatory pricing and other anticompetitive tactics to destroy smaller firms, thus acting directly against the free market you evoke. Similarly, the biggest corporations are most able to take advantage of techniques like transfer pricing, tax dodges, and political corruption, all of which undermine and distort democratic and administrative structures.

You've also discussed how the world would be better off if it were destroyed by Al Quida. You need to choose your enemies better. As for standard/quality of living, name a socialist state that has exceeded the US in prosperity.

Well, I can think of a few states with political cultures and histories which are far more socialist than the US and which are more developed - like Sweden, Norway and Canada. Higher life expectancies, comparable standards of living with far less inequality and grinding poverty, a much smaller proportion of malnourished children (if any), better education systems ... Yeah, I'd say they're pretty succesful countries.

As has already been pointed out, neither scientific progress nor the existence of democracy nor reasonable standards of living can be attributed solely to capitalism. For example, standards of living have plummeted in Eastern Europe and Russia since the introduction of 'big-bang' capitalist reforms. So making sweeping statements like 'free markets good, socialism bad' is plainly bogus. Context always matters, history always matters, internal and external relations always matter. The majority of post-war governments have mixed markets and socialism to some extent, and I don't see that stopping any time soon, especially if Bush's failed state is supposed to be the paragon of free market paradise.

Zombrex

If you actually believe GWB gained the presidency by corruption, you have no understanding of the division of power in the US, or recent election history.

Read Michael Moores excellent book "Stupid White Men" ... very interesting chapter on how the Republican party (with the help of a Republican governor) managed to get thousands of black (typically a democrat group) voters taken off the voting list in Florida. GWB did gain the presidency by corruption, just no one could be arsed pointing it out or trying to prove it do anything about it.

As for standard/quality of living, name a socialist state that has exceeded the US in prosperity.

Have u actually ever been to the US. Now it depends on how u define prosperity, but if you mean prosperity FOR ALL citizens simple answer off the top of my head would be Cuba. The have a health care system that makes America look like a sick joke. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when, thanks to the US, Cuba lost most of its trade, not a single hospital closed down. In America a hospital will close down if the coffee machine breaks. It seems completely horrific to me coming from a country with a socialist healthcare system, but in the States if you are sick you have to buy yourself help. They sell help to you, and if you can't afford it you are screwed.

People like Britney Spears maybe making millions thanks the free market but America has some of the poorest most economically devastated areas in the world. Third World doctors from Africa train in inner city Detriot and other run down American cities because it best reflects what they will experience back in Africa. FFS!

Now you will no doubt blame the poor people in America for not getting an education, not staying in school (kinda hard when they are all closing down), or not having the ambition to work harder in McDonalds (kinda hard when they downsize and make all staff part time). Your problem is that you only look at the people who have done well, and then declare that capitalism works wonderfully for them. Of course it does! But you conveniently ignore the other 90% who have been comply screwed by the system that put the profits of some rich person over there health and education.


Now you will no doubt blame the poor people in America for not getting an education, not staying in school (kinda hard when they are all closing down), or not having the ambition to work harder in McDonalds (kinda hard when they downsize and make all staff part time). Your problem is that you only look at the people who have done well, and then declare that capitalism works wonderfully for them. Of course it does! But you conveniently ignore the other 90% who have been comply screwed by the system that put the profits of some rich person over there health and education.
.

Meh

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
Inevitably, the Soviet Union is always cited by the defenders of capitalism as an example of socialism failing. However, the Soviet Union was never a socialist state, the Soviet Union was nothing more than a dictatorship.

A socialist dictatorship (with the economy under centralised control).

We in Ireland owe our good fortune to the success of socialist ideals. The past 10-15 years has seen phenomenal growth in countries such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal. This is due almost wholly to the EU development funds

Wrong. EU funds played a part in Ireland's economic success, but only a minor part compared to the other Irish advantages of (relatively) stable government, low tax, education and a business-friendly environment.

I find it disappointing that so many people in this country are still willing to preach the hard-line capitalist mantra, when we owe so much of our success and prosperity to the socialist ideals of mainland Europe and its EU policies.

You mean EU policies like "free trade", "open markets" and "labour market flexibility"? All classic capitalist ideas...

Always amusing to see people try to explain away the abysmal failure of socialist economics wherever they've been tried. So far we've had:

1. All those countries weren't really socialist!
2. It's capitalism's fault socialism always ends up as a bankrupt tyranny

I'm sure there'll be a few more by the end of this thread...

Victor

Going to any extreme of capitalism or communism, liberalism or conservatism will tend to result in stagnation, inefficiencies, corruption and conflict. In fact I would consider Germany a better example of capitalism than the USA, even though it could easily be called a social democracy.

Originally posted by Meh
You mean EU policies like "free trade", "open markets" and "labour market flexibility"? All classic capitalist ideas...

And socialist ideas like worker's rights, consumer rights and liberal ideas like freedom of movement and women's / minorities rights.

However the biggest cause of change in Ireland over the last few years has been demographics, i.e. nearly 2,000,000 working now compared to 1,000,000 in the 1980s.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As to the rest of your argument, really, you are an unapologetic right wing fool and I don't intent to waste my time.

And you have already been warned about this type of abuse.

One week ban from Politics, effective immediately.

When its over, you are more than elcome to come back if you have learned what I meant when I told you before about attacking the post and not the poster.

As always, if you have issues with this, take it to the Admin board, or PM me or one of the other two Politics moderators (gandalf and Swiss).
jc

Lennoxschips

Wrong. EU funds played a part in Ireland's economic success, but only a minor part compared to the other Irish advantages of (relatively) stable government, low tax, education and a business-friendly environment.

I dunno, I wouldn't like to imagine the state of things in this country if we had never gotten the EU grants...

Meh

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
I dunno, I wouldn't like to imagine the state of things in this country if we had never gotten the EU grants...

Well, let's ask the EU itself:

It has been estimated that the combined effect of EU Structural Fund interventions under the two CSFs is to raise the level of GNP by between 3% and 4% in the period 1995-99 above the level it would have been without the EU funding. The long-term impact of the Structural Fund investment under the two CSFs will be to raise the level of GNP by about 2%.

So the structural funds accounted for additional growth of ~1% per annum between 1995 and 1999, at a time when Irish GDP growth was about 10% per annum. Undoubtedly the EU made an important contribution, but Ireland's economic boom cannot be attributed to EU handouts alone. There are more fundamental factors at work.

Lennoxschips

You're looking up the wrong statistics. I don't think the EU funds during 1995-1999 had much to do with the economic boom between 1995-1999. I would doubt that they would have such an immediate effect! I would be more interested in the EU funding between 1975 and 1995.

Meh

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
You're looking up the wrong statistics. I don't think the EU funds during 1995-1999 had much to do with the economic boom between 1995-1999. I would doubt that they would have such an immediate effect! I would be more interested in the EU funding between 1975 and 1995.

OK, try here

Total net receipts to Ireland in the period 1973–1995 amount to more than IR£21,000 million. These resources have been spent in restructuring agriculture, providing skills training to the unemployed, sustaining local development and employment initiatives and developing the State’s national economic infrastructure. A 1994 Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report estimated that the total cumulative impact of structural funding accounted for an increase of 7% of GNP

7% growth over 22 years = ~0.32% per year. So EU handouts alone account for only a small fraction of Ireland's economic success. Without the consistent pro-growth economic policies pursued by successive governments, the EU funds would have been wasted and there would have been no boom.

Originally posted by Wicknight
Read Michael Moores excellent book "Stupid White Men" ... very interesting chapter on how the Republican party (with the help of a Republican governor) managed to get thousands of black (typically a democrat group) voters taken off the voting list in Florida. GWB did gain the presidency by corruption, just no one could be arsed pointing it out or trying to prove it do anything about it.
.

My brother and several others were unable to vote in the First Nice referendum as they had been taken off the register for some unknown reason, or by an over zealous clerk.
You have me thinking that there's a conspiracy in their area:rolleyes:

Now assuming, that 1000's of black people were taken off the register in Florida for sinister reasons, presumably they were within their rights to go back on.
you overlook the fact that nationally,in the U.S congressional elections after Bush was elected, the Republicans took control.
And the congressional elections,are one man/woman one vote, as opposed to the peculiar presidential system.
were they off the register that time too? because if they were that's a reflection on the poor abilities of Democrat activists in in florida.

But then what democracy doesn't have its idiosyncracies when the election is almost a photo finish? as the U.S Presidential one was give or take a few tens of thousands.

If it's any consolation, I was in the states a few weeks ago, and from talking to people, I doubt if Bush will be re-elected next time, a Democrat romp is more likely.
mm

Zombrex

with all the capitists banging on about how all purely socialist states have failed, whould someone mind showing me a PURELY capitist country that has done well for all it citizens.

It seems to me that the only things that actually benifit society as a whole (better health care, better education, workers rights etc) come from left wing socialist ideas.

Sand

by which I mean that everyone alive, whether I like it or not lives in this society which at present depends on money generated by wage labour - thus these nurses et al depend on the money so generated to survive and hence my point about redressing an imbalance.

I agree - thats what I believe, that people work for money rather than any sense of duty to their fellow man.

." I think that Arts do have value and the only reason I am taking an arts degree, as opposed to medicine (which I am very eligible for) was because it boils down to which I preferred as a career rather than which I would earn more money at.

This interesting to me. Unless Im getting you confused you claim to speak for a socialist/communist group in NI. As a communist wouldnt you view a doctor as being far more valuable to a society than say, a expert in Celtic languages with a bit of history and a few ologies thrown in for good measure? Wouldnt you feel then a certain duty as a communist to pursue the course most beneficial to society that you are apparently smart enough to get?

As Ive said Ive little problem with arts as a hobby or a self funded exercise, I feel though that anyone who takes up the privledge of free 3rd level education shouldnt be wasting taxpayers money pursuing a practically useless degree - whilst youve mentioned other threads Ive put across my views on the various "no free college" threads that have appeared over time.

in fact the left wing is clearly divided on this topic; Stalinists defend their regimes yet the rest of the left disavow them (though this part, to which I belong never supported them in the first place as a result of Trotsky's dictum.

But its not my view that communists/socialists are fans of dictatorships - but that their philosphy when practically enacted has consistently devolved to a dictatorship due to the fact that it concentrates power, particularly economic which is an important freedom, into the hands of a minority elite. With the problems we have with corruption in democratic societies , how can we suddenly believe giving total power to a government is suddenly going to reduce corruption?

Call me dave, if you don't mind.

Im dave too- no relation:)

Post something with some content.

Shot this is pretty ironic, given your post just previous to that

I second that. The first part, anyway.

Pot and kettle Shot?:D

Zombrex

were they off the register that time too?

To be honest with you I don't know. The reason they were taken of the register is because convicted criminals cannot vote in presidental elections in Florida. The corruption happened when people (over half African American), who were never convicted of a crime, were taken off because they had similar names, similar dates of birth, or similar social security numbers as a person who did commit a crime. They accepted an 80% match to the actual person who had commited the crime. The state then put the responsibility on the person to prove that they were not the crimial by getting finger printed. Of course most couldn't do this because they only found out they couldn't vote they day the went to vote.

And that is not the half of it ... you should really get the book for the rest of the story, but it is quite shocking ... not really anything to do with capitialism, but shows that American is becoming a democracy in name only

Meh

Originally posted by Wicknight
with all the capitists banging on about how all purely socialist states have failed, whould someone mind showing me a PURELY capitist country that has done well for all it citizens.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not a believer in pure laissez-faire capitalism. I believe that a limited amount of government intervention is necessary in any economy.

To answer your question though, I don't think there are any purely capitalist societies around at the moment. The closest was probably Hong Kong (until the Chinese took over in 1997). It's actually doing very well for itself socially -- infant mortality rates are comparable to Irish figures, even with the Asian economic downturn. It's definitely one of the world's economic success stories.

It seems to me that the only things that actually benifit society as a whole (better health care, better education, workers rights etc) come from left wing socialist ideas.

And what generates the wealth to pay for all these wonderful (not sarcastic) socialist policies? Capitalism.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Shot this is pretty ironic, given your post just previous to that

Well, I just couldn't resist it dave, plus I think I made up for it with the lengthy post that followed. Take issue with that if you like.

Zombrex

particularly economic which is an important freedom, into the hands of a minority elite. With the problems we have with corruption in democratic societies , how can we suddenly believe giving total power to a government is suddenly going to reduce corruption?

Do you even know what leftwing is?? Giving total power to the minority elite is Rightwing Capitism!!!! You want total economic power to be given to the heads of huge corportations, who care nothing for the people of a country and only care about themselves and making money.

The government represents the people. If you remove the government from economic matters you are effectively removing the will of the people from control their own economy. Corportations would be allowed to act in there own interests with nothing to restrain them damaging socieity or the environment.

Give me one example where that would theoritically work, let allow practically work.

Lennoxschips

Total net receipts to Ireland in the period 1973–1995 amount to more than IR£21,000 million. These resources have been spent in restructuring agriculture, providing skills training to the unemployed, sustaining local development and employment initiatives and developing the State’s national economic infrastructure. A 1994 Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report estimated that the total cumulative impact of structural funding accounted for an increase of 7% of GNP

7% growth over 22 years = ~0.32% per year. So EU handouts alone account for only a small fraction of Ireland's economic success. Without the consistent pro-growth economic policies pursued by successive governments, the EU funds would have been wasted and there would have been no boom.

It's 21,000,000,000 (twenty one billion pounds). That's nearly 1 billion pounds a year for 22 years in a row. That's a lot of dosh for a country like Ireland, it probably stopped the country from going bankrupt. When you consider the state of affairs Ireland was in during the 70s and 80s (recession, negative growth, emigration), this money probably saved us from going over the edge.

If it weren't for the socialist ideals of EU policy, Ireland would have gone down the capitalist route and loaned those 22 billion pounds from the World Bank. The loans would have been a noose around our necks and paying off the interest alone would be crippling to the budget and the economy. Thank goodness for the EU.