Europe: saving countries...
...and spending countries
See? Saving makes you miserable, look at their faces! Be jolly, be merry and waste much, you’ll live happier lives! Cannot take it with you when you’re gone! (erm, although those “happy” faces look mean and that pig looks unhappy in both cases).
Notice the moustaches and sun-glasses in the lower part? Must be those southern parts, lots of sun. :-|
Mmm, Leitão à Bairrada!
@Churchillwasamoron check back a day and be schooled by my awesomeness gramps!
^According to my big, thick, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, Copyright © 2001(Required for college level term papers and such) the definition is as follows:
so•cial•ism (sō’shə-ˌli’zəm), n.
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole
Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. cf. Utopian Socialism. (1830-40, [social + - ism]
The problem with fennec’s definition is that it vests the means of production with the state, which is text book communism (I can give you the definition of that if you like), whereas true socialism (see definition above) rests the means of production with the people, hence the fire department. This is what Marx meant by socialist however the likes of Stalin have tarnished the true meaning and since no one is gonna bother reading Marx’s books Stalin remains the norm (tragically). That’s not to say that I agree with Marx totally since there are things we should let the private sector have (for example I don’t want the government to make my T.V.), but in terms of the things that benefit the common wealth (like the fire department) I agree that this type of socialism works, hence definition #2 on my side.
So I’ll take the text book definition over what you or fennec (sorry) have to say about it. This is why I tell you gramps, education is the key to ignorance, though Dr.Canuck might disagree.
BTW It was a pain carrying that big book around campus. Thank God I don’t have to drag this thing around anymore!
Ignorance as a child can be tolerated.
Ignorance as an adult should never be.
Public safety services are almost always provided for by the public collective.Ie;police ,fire and judicial.As it well should be . Although in some cases a private fire dept and
private detectives have done a much more efficiant and cost effective job. And I might add with a higher degree of professionalism.
Your argument is that those services make us nessesarily socialist?
Your argument holds no water in as much as those sevices do not produce wealth or a particular tangible asset.
^(Sigh) You don’t get it gramps. The fire department’s job is to put out fires and save lives, not to make the fire trucks, fire extinguishers, or the fire resistant clothes they use. If they did they would be called the fire department depot. Don’t mix up your industries.
If we’re talking about economics here pure capitalism and socialism are both doomed to fail. They both corrupt their governments leading to fascism and communism respectively. As for my econ professors (I had six for my minor) two microeconomics loved regulated capitalism, two macroeconomics loved laissez-faire. and the other two (government and World economics) wanted a hybrid system.
^You still don’t understand anything so lets start with the basics. The means of production are not limited to raw materials. When you buy a car does all state give you anything other than a piece of paper? No. They provide a service and we all agree that people don’t need to insure each others cars because not everyone drives a car. Now with the fire department we all own or rent houses so we agreed to control the means of production via fire fighting and life saving. This is an example of socialism.
I did not change the subject. I gave you what you wanted: I asked my econ professors about socialism and I got different opinions. I didn’t change the subject.
And Obama is old enough to be my grandad so I’d call him gramps too.
Also if I didn’t trust people over 30 I wouldn’t be a college student now, would I?
^I know I made my point clear when you resort to name calling gramps.
My classmates were able to grasp this concept way back when. Why can’t you? It seems you’re interested in trying to change the subject by correcting my spelling or grammar or whatever instead of acknowledging the concepts that professors with masters degrees and experience explained to me and my fellow pupils.
But then I’m debating an old man with a VTR who thinks he knows more about this subject than my professors do. I think I’ll stay with the stuff my educated professors have taught me than what a limbaughcile has to say on the subject.