A real comparison of liberal vs conservative governments

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

I'm actually curious what you find to be so completely incorrect about what he wrote?

If you're interested in the subject look up some comparisons of MN and WI, and our Dayton vs. their Walker, and how the states have performed under Democrat vs. Republican governors. It's a big subject with a lot of variables but generally speaking it can be argued the MN citizens have done better - wages, health care coverage, etc. If nothing else, you can at least see that it isn't a very big difference.

I get your first post and it's a lot of information and time taken to share it, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the country as a whole. I'm guessing you would agree to that?

I stopped arguing with him when he (a) stated that China is a leading example of capitalism and (b) listed a bunch of capitalist countries in Europe and claimed them to be Socialist countries. I realized then, that it was like arguing with a shoe.

With respect to your other question, I believe the straight answer is 'give it time'. Many times when a location is just a little left, or has only been left for a small period of time, the difference may not be much if any at all. But the left always wants to go further left and as that occurs over time, the variance gets larger and larger. Socialism will always eventually lead to Totalitarianism or a despotic regime and will always eventually be bad for the people as a whole

[Delta0311]

Originally Posted by Z K

1. This is where most people get confused so I understand your confusion. Socialism is not Marxist-Leninst. Maxist-Leninst is a sub type of socialism. Kinda like saying how all believers in God are alike... but the catholics, protestants would argue otherwise.

Here is a list of the top socialist countries in the world:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

How many of them are totalitarian?

2. Corporations, even some small companies do not have the public in mind. Yes, shareholders are people too, but most shareholders are not company employees and so they do not have the people who work for the company in mind when they make decisions. A true people focused company would be things like a cooperative - they work and succeed because the people working there have a say in the every day operations and decisions of the company.

3. Yes, China is communist in name, but have you been there? Political and economical policy are two different things. Politically it's communist, but economically it is a free market. If you go you'll find the most capitalistic economy in the world - much more free from regulation than anything in the USA. If you have the money, you can pay off the police, you can pay off regulators and buy influence. Environmental regulations? None! Patent regulation? None! Govt safety inspections? None! It is a perfect free market with massive growth because there is no regulation. Competition is fierce and much more competitive than the US market. Anything goes if you have money and whole cities can get built in days because there's no govt regulation! It is pure capitalism!

Even Deng Xiaoping, the leader of China in the 1980s and 1990s said, "致富光荣" (zhìfù guāngróng: To get rich is glorious!)

Many articles, here's a few:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#5d58fb1e659e
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...talist-2015-10
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ce-capitalism/

Seems you are pretty clueless about Scandinavia. Yes Sweden has a pretty large social safety net but they are a highly capitalistic country. In fact they have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Majority of taxes there are paid by the people. And at the rate Belgium is going it will probably be a Islamic State by 2050.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

I stopped arguing with him when he (a) stated that China is a leading example of capitalism and (b) listed a bunch of capitalist countries in Europe and claimed them to be Socialist countries. I realized then, that it was like arguing with a shoe.

With respect to your other question, I believe the straight answer is 'give it time'. Many times when a location is just a little left, or has only been left for a small period of time, the difference may not be much if any at all. But the left always wants to go further left and as that occurs over time, the variance gets larger and larger. Socialism will always eventually lead to Totalitarianism or a despotic regime and will always eventually be bad for the people as a whole

Go google a list of the top socialist countries and that is what comes up. A socialist policy is not at odds with capitalism. Things like unemployment benefits, social security, public education, even things like the police are socialist govt policies - they take money from individuals to provide a benefit for the whole society. A pure capitalist society would not have these social policies.

As for China's capitalism... the current rise of China is driven by private enterprises, entrepreneurs and competition between individuals and companies - it is not top down govt mandated. How is that not capitalism? You can have capitalism without democracy. One is a economic policy, the other is political.

https://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...not-democratic

[tracer bullet]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

I stopped arguing with him when he (a) stated that China is a leading example of capitalism and (b) listed a bunch of capitalist countries in Europe and claimed them to be Socialist countries. I realized then, that it was like arguing with a shoe.

I see what you are saying, and I do agree. One needs to be specific in what they say especially in the middle of any sort of reasonable debate.

I am guilty of not taking him to his word but what I thought was his intent... I agree that China is indeed very much a capitalist society in terms of economics. I do agree with you that true socialism does probably also require being totalitarian, and that socialism as a policy fails (Russia, Venezuela, North Korea). But I was agreeing with him, if it was his intent to say it (my bad for assuming), that a country can do things that some folks scream "socialist" at, without that country being totalitarian (or actually socialist) - police & fire, parks & rec, schools, and perhaps indeed health care. I know these aren't examples of socialism by definition, the government doesn't own capital equipment and etc., but this is what I was taking him to mean.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by tracer bullet

I see what you are saying, and I do agree. One needs to be specific in what they say especially in the middle of any sort of reasonable debate.

I am guilty of not taking him to his word but what I thought was his intent... I agree that China is indeed very much a capitalist society in terms of economics. I do agree with you that true socialism does probably also require being totalitarian, and that socialism as a policy fails (Russia, Venezuela, North Korea). But I was agreeing with him, if it was his intent to say it (my bad for assuming), that a country can do things that some folks scream "socialist" at, without that country being totalitarian (or actually socialist) - police & fire, parks & rec, schools, and perhaps indeed health care. I know these aren't examples of socialism by definition, the government doesn't own capital equipment and etc., but this is what I was taking him to mean.

Of course there are things in a modern society that the government manages via taxation and for which life is better for the majority of citizens - things such what you mention.

I would note, however, that nearly all of those things would probably work better, have more innovation, be less wasteful, and generally make everyone better off if they were left to the private sector.

In addition, it is pretty common knowledge, and proven with the stats in my first post, that over the long run - the more government intervention in a society and more government control, the worse that society becomes for its citizens.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

Of course there are things in a modern society that the government manages via taxation and for which life is better for the majority of citizens - things such what you mention.

I would note, however, that nearly all of those things would probably work better, have more innovation, be less wasteful, and generally make everyone better off if they were left to the private sector.

In addition, it is pretty common knowledge, and proven with the stats in my first post, that over the long run - the more government intervention in a society and more government control, the worse that society becomes for its citizens.

Many examples where this is not true. Privatization is not always good.

Even in things I use every day like internet. I can only choose from 2 internet providers and they both charge a lot of money for what I think is slow access. Because there is no govt regulation of internet access, they have no incentive to speed up their network in my area because there is no alternatives that can be had. Our development was only prewired with one cable line as the developer had an agreement with the cable company. A smaller ISP decided to come in but since cable internet is run through cable lines, they could not install without running additional lines underground and through walls which would cost much more investment than they had.

Same can be said of privatized education. If there was no public education, who would offer education to the low income and people with no means to pay for education? You would forever have a 2 tier education system where those with money get better education than those without.

Because of privatization of healthcare, they have created a system where the costs of healthcare are skyrocketing. Because the end result is profit - not care for everyone. America has the highest healthcare costs in the world.

Private companies exist for 1 purpose - to make money. It will do so regardless if it is good for society.

That's why on a small scale, it is good as it drives down costs and increases competition. But as the scale goes up, there is no more competition as the dominant players control the market and prevents others from entering the market. Without govt regulation to level the playing field, things will go badly.

[2000cs]

Two very interesting cities, similarly situated in many respects but with very different outcomes are Chicago and Detroit. Some interesting lessons to be learned from their histories.

Two interesting companies to contrast, also started at almost the same time, are KMart and WalMart. Essentially the same business but with different strategies; the one that clearly won was not the front runner for many many years.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

This will be my last response to you, as you have your mind set on what you want to believe, irrespective of the fact that it is wrong. If you honestly were open to listening to other opinions and would actually change your beliefs when shown the facts, I would continue - but alas, that isn't to be.

We need some government, limited government. But most of life, the best of life, goes on without government, many of the best parts in spite of government.

As such, however...

1) The internet issues you are having is due to crony capitalism (i.e. more government influence). When monopolies or Near-Monopolies occur due to government payoffs, etc - no one wins. I don't have that where I live and as such, I currently have 5 different internet providers to chose from who all fight for my business. I have 100mbps internet in my home for which I pay $49/mo for. I am happy with that speed and cost.

2) Eliminate public education, have the government spend that tax money on vouchers for the low income students instead. The government spends on average about $13,000 per student per year. Very easy to find a quality private school for far less tuition than that. Prices would come down further, as well, due to increased competition.

3) Costs associated with healthcare have very little to do with profits. Most of our high healthcare costs in this country relate to two things. The absorption of high levels of litigation expenses and the offset of costs associated with having to eat the patients who come into hospitals and don't pay along with underpayments by the governments via medicare and medicaid reimbursements.

4) Regarding companies only existing to make money...this is true, but companies have to do right by the eyes of the consumer or they will go out of business. Look at the current government shutdown as an example. The New York Times shrieks, "Shutdown Curtails FDA Food Inspections!" More important, meat is usually safe not because of government -- but because of competition. Food sellers worry about their reputations. They know they'll get bad publicity if they poison people (think Chipotle), so they take many more safety measures than government requires. I know for a fact that one meat producer employs 2,000 more safety inspectors than the law demands. Even security work is done better by the private sector. At San Francisco's airport, security lines move faster. The screeners are nicer and the TSA even acknowledged that those screeners are better at finding contraband. That's because San Francisco (Kansas City, Seattle and a dozen smaller airports) privatized the screening process. Private companies are responsible for security. Private contractors are better because they must compete. Perform badly, and they get fired.

As I said, good on a small scale, not a good idea on a large scale.

I would not be here today without the assistance of social programs. As a child, San Francisco public education, public libraries, public scholarships, govt school loans allowed me get a quality education and to get to where I am today. As such I can see the value in these and I hope it will help other children without means.

But I think I'll agree to disagree. I don't think you can see my viewpoint nor me yours.

[///M4ster Yoda]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

LOL. I started to respond to this and then realized I would be wasting my time. It is seriously like trying to have a conversation with someone that is so.... you know, I cannot even come up with an analogy. You are that ridiculous. Just completely out of touch with reality that nothing will ever come of it.

You keep enjoying your 'pretend fairy tail land' and the rest of us will understand reality.

Isn't San Fran (where he lives) the heart of pretend fairy tail land?

[minn19]

Not saying in the end your conclusions wouldn't come out the same. But, for this to be a real comparison we need a lot more information. Such as the histories of industry, agriculture, population demographics, political histories, state level laws etc etc.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

It should all be there for you. The industry, agriculture, and population demographics are all identical (it is the same city). The political histories and sate laws are readily available and generally well known for both Virginia and Tennessee.

Right, but what I mean is somebody would have to study all of that to figure out why both places are where they are now. Like I said, it very well could be what you are saying, but you also may be surprised what an in depth analysis of all the data may come up with.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by minn19

Right, but what I mean is somebody would have to study all of that to figure out why both places are where they are now. Like I said, it very well could be what you are saying, but you also may be surprised what an in depth analysis of all the data may come up with.

Fair - but again, it is pretty obvious. What you are saying is akin (albeit on a more dramatic scale) to asking that question about why East and West Berlin functioned differently. I think it is quite obvious why one side of the city faltered while the other flourished.

Same here. Decades of financial mismanagement by the city government, plus decades of higher taxes and business regulations, caused those that tend to contribute most to society and the tax base to migrate over the border to TN.

[cjb762]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

2) Large corporations do not have people's interests in mind and would screw over people to get profits for shareholders.
But only large ones? Small corporations are benevolent in your eyes? When is the switch over? I'm dying to know.
Also: People = Shareholders. They are the same thing.

Come on, you are either missing the point here, or intentionally giving short shrift to his argument (and I suspect it's the later).

Yes, shareholders are people, but not the people he is talking about. The vast majority of the general public is not a shareholder in any given company - and of the ones who are, most probably don't own enough shares to have any influence on the company's decision making at all. So you are looking at a very small group of shareholders (people) with any direct influence on the company's decisions.

I love capitalism, and am 100% for it above all other forms of economic/political systems. But pure unregulated capitalism would be an absolute shit show (and I understand that you agree with some regulation). It has to be regulated because people, in general, can't be trusted to do the right thing without rules and oversight when profit is concerned. We have seen this over and over with terrible results. Whether it is brokers pushing toxic assets on investors, or factories dumping toxic waste directly into rivers, the companies didn't care at all about the people whose lives they were poisoning and destroying.

When profit is the main concern of a company above all else, concern for anything else far too often goes out the window.

Also, I am not a socialist or about "redistributing" money, but I do think that the people and companies who are making the money need to pay their fair share for the services and infrastructure that allows them to be so profitable (military, police, roads, etc...). It also wouldn't offend me if more profits went to employees, rather than increasingly being concentrated at the top.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

I believe so, yes. Which is sad - I love that city. It is so beautiful and has so much going for it. That is the saving grace, in that it is such a beautiful city, that many are willing to pay the prices of the liberal devastation (high taxes, high cost of living, high levels of crime, high levels of homelessness, ect) to live there.

Over time, however, it will go the same way has all uber-liberal cities......

It's ok, it's fun to watch my home value double every 10 years. I can retire anywhere in the world if SF goes to crap.

[///M4ster Yoda]

Originally Posted by Z K

It's ok, it's fun to watch my home value double every 10 years. I can retire anywhere in the world if SF goes to crap.

Hasn't that already happened literally?

[Z K]

Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda

Hasn't that already happened literally?

Yes, my home value has already doubled a few times.

If you are talking about homeless issues, it has been improving.

DPW has regular cleaning crews. Police force hiring is up and so is enforcement. Homeless employment programs are employing homeless people to clean up the streets. New homeless shelters are going up. Lots of stuff going on.

The real problem is federal as federal funding for mental health care is long gone. Non violent mental patients have no where to go for care and housing. Also, opoid drugs are a big problem. Hopefully Trump's crack down on drugs fixes that.

Most homeless have mental and/or drug issues. These are people who need treatment programs. The question is, who foots the bill. Since the federal govt stopped helping, it's up to citizens to step up.

Did you know that the majority of homeless in SF are not from SF? Other cities send their homeless to SF on one way bus rides. So this is not just a SF problem. Other cities are sending their problem to SF.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-country-study

[///M4ster Yoda]

Originally Posted by Z K

Yes, my home value has already doubled a few times.

If you are talking about homeless issues, it has been improving.

DPW has regular cleaning crews. Police force hiring is up and so is enforcement. Homeless employment programs are employing homeless people to clean up the streets. New homeless shelters are going up. Lots of stuff going on.

The real problem is federal as federal funding for mental health care is long gone. Non violent mental patients have no where to go for care and housing. Also, opoid drugs are a big problem. Hopefully Trump's crack down on drugs fixes that.

Most homeless have mental and/or drug issues. These are people who need treatment programs. The question is, who foots the bill. Since the federal govt stopped helping, it's up to citizens to step up.

Did you know that the majority of homeless in SF are not from SF? Other cities send their homeless to SF on one way bus rides. So this is not just a SF problem. Other cities are sending their problem to SF.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-country-study

I was just messing with you man. I'm well versed in how fucked up America is in dealing with mental illness. Basically we don't deal with it. It's jail or the streets. If the family of the individual has money they may end up somewhere helpful but for the most part it's option 1 or 2. Sad. My brother in law has mental illness and I saw first hand how fucked up the "system" is.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda

I was just messing with you man. I'm well versed in how fucked up America is in dealing with mental illness. Basically we don't deal with it. It's jail or the streets. If the family of the individual has money they may end up somewhere helpful but for the most part it's option 1 or 2. Sad. My brother in law has mental illness and I saw first hand how fucked up the "system" is.

I'm sorry about your brother in law, it's very stressful for families dealing with mental issues.

Yeah, the problem was because of abuse of patients and funding misuse back when there was federal mental health care. So they basically just closed up all the mental centers and everyone got dumped onto the street.

Like you said, some go to jail and the others get left in the street. Most of my encounters with homeless are some guy screaming incoherently or dancing around in their underwear in the middle of the street. There's many vets on the streets with mental problems from war - people who helped fight for this country that we've turned our backs to. The system is pretty broken.

[///M4ster Yoda]

Originally Posted by Z K

I'm sorry about your brother in law, it's very stressful for families dealing with mental issues.

Yeah, the problem was because of abuse of patients and funding misuse back when there was federal mental health care. So they basically just closed up all the mental centers and everyone got dumped onto the street.

Like you said, some go to jail and the others get left in the street. Most of my encounters with homeless are some guy screaming incoherently or dancing around in their underwear in the middle of the street. There's many vets on the streets with mental problems from war - people who helped fight for this country that we've turned our backs to. The system is pretty broken.

Thanks. Ya it was tough for my wife and In laws. They had a difficult time getting help initially. My bro in law developed schizophrenia at 16y/o. The so called "professionals" initial opinions were that he was a spoiled kid. Idiots. It took years and a crime/jail for help to come. It's sad. My wife and her family are awesome people and they didn't deserve that Hell. Anyway that was a few years back and things are much better now. The system fails these people and it really pisses me off. This is poli-sci so I can get political here. We as a country give and give and give. Not just to illegal immigrants but to people throughout the world yet we do not help our own citizens. I can't put into words how terrible and dumb that is. Mind boggling.

[Z K]

Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda

Thanks. Ya it was tough for my wife and In laws. They had a difficult time getting help initially. My bro in law developed schizophrenia at 16y/o. The so called "professionals" initial opinions were that he was a spoiled kid. Idiots. It took years and a crime/jail for help to come. It's sad. My wife and her family are awesome people and they didn't deserve that Hell. Anyway that was a few years back and things are much better now. The system fails these people and it really pisses me off. This is poli-sci so I can get political here. We as a country give and give and give. Not just to illegal immigrants but to people throughout the world yet we do not help our own citizens. I can't put into words how terrible and dumb that is. Mind boggling.

The US gives to others but there's a lot of politics involved. I think a lot of it is cost. You can give a donation to some place and house some refugees for a while. It is a one time expense and looks good in the news. Providing care for thousands or millions of US citizens full time? That's a huge on going expense and no one wants to write that check.

In the type of spending this is, it is definitely a social benefit that conservative "small government" advocates will not want to pay for.

[Z K]

I don't really like bringing politics into mental illness as I feel like it's should not be a partisan issue. But California passed a measure to fund and provide public care for people with mental illnesses. 2004's Prop 63 is a tax on the top 0.1% of California tax payers to help pay for mental illness care. Current funding is not enough to care for all those in need but they're trying to help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_C...Proposition_63
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/op...224097670.html

[Law]

Originally Posted by ///M4ster Yoda

We as a country give and give and give. Not just to illegal immigrants but to people throughout the world yet we do not help our own citizens. I can't put into words how terrible and dumb that is. Mind boggling.

I'm very sorry about your brother-in-law.

But, this is spot-on.

The US gives so much aid to impoverished regions worldwide, gives substantial military aid to allies (i.e., NATO, Israel, etc.), takes care of the livelihood of illegal aliens (i.e., education, subsidized programs/healthcare, sanctuary cities, etc.) and funds so many projects abroad that you and I have probably never even heard of, in places we'll probably never go, all of which are ultimately funded by American taxpayers.

Yet, at home, as a whole, we have crumbling/outdated infrastructure, roads full of potholes, public transit systems that might've looked state-of-the-art during the '60s, drug/gang problems in the cities, and a public education system that, quite frankly, can be a lot better.
Basic quality of life stuff is not even glanced at nor addressed.
Look at the political debates, whether state or federal. The issue is always the other party, or some external problem (originating outside the US) that is force-fed by politicians and media-alike as the top priority.
Both of the major parties are guilty of this.

One of the problems with US leaders (not just federal but also on the state level) and policy is that they are often short-sighted, which is a consequence of the political system that forces politicians and policy-makers of the administration to only work towards short-term realizations and bank on reelection.
Policy is guided by emotion and public opinion (which is emotionally driven), rather than concrete analysis and long-term growth/sustainability.

You're absolutely right that nobody wants to foot the bill for the American people. It's sad on so many levels.
I'm all for a smaller government that should keep its nose out of private matters (i.e., California is an example of what a good government shouldn't be), but at the same time, I certainly wouldn't be offended if government (be it state or federal) took the initiative for some infrastructure projects and other programs that directly benefit the American citizens.

We write checks to countries like Pakistan, Israel, Honduras, etc. etc. etc. without even blinking an eye.
Yet, giving back to the American people is the hardest thing to do because of partisan politics.
For example, a huge infrastructure project, no matter how much it benefits the American people or seems common-sense, would be met with opposition (depending on which party is in power/opposition) buzzwords like "that's socialist/big government", "but what about the environment/the endangered spider", etc.

In the end, the real loser in this is the American.